Israel’s Mossad: “Ruthless and cunning … a wildcard . . . [that has the] capability to target U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.”

—The U.S. Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies

On September 10, 2001—one day before the tragic ter­rorist attacks that shocked America—The Washington Times revealed in a front-page story that top U.S. Army analysts believed that Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, was “ruthless and cunning, “a wildcard” that “has [the] capability to tar­get U.S. forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act.”

That explosive and highly revealing assertion appeared in a 68- page paper prepared by sixty officers at the United States Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies (SAMS), a Fort Leavenworth- based training ground for up-and-coming Army officers. The Army paper called Israel’s armed forces a “5(H) pound gorilla” that is “known to disregard international law to accomplish [its] mission.” The negative comments about Israel appeared in a SAMS paper putting forth a plan for enforcing an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord requiring an international peace-keeping force of some 20,000 troops stationed in Israel and in a newly-created Palestinian state. That the SAMS proposal factored in the existence of a Palestinian state is an affront by the American Army officers to Israel, which has never fully accepted the idea of a Palestinian state.

In light of the suggestion by U.S. Army officers that Israel might attempt to disrupt U.S. and international peacekeeping efforts in the Middle East and disguise the crimes as those of Palestinian or Arab forces, the events of September 11, 2001—one day after The Washington Times reported this story—take on a new light.

Americans have been taught—particularly in the wake of 9-11 —to respect our military and to “support the troops.” But despite these very clear warnings regarding Israel coming from some of our most distinguished military minds, many Americans continue to trust and support Israel. The reason for this is because the controlled media in America largely suppresses the point of view of those con­siderable numbers of top military figures who have such concerns.

And it is this same controlled media that has purveyed the “false flags” that have been used to cover up some of the worst terrorist actions—by Israel—of our times.

FALSE FLAGS:Template for Terror

An
Analytical Critique of the Covert Model Utilized by the Conspirators Who
Orchestrated 9-11, the Oklahoma City Bombing, the JFK Assassination, Sandy Hook
and Boston

Michael
Collins Piper

TABLE OF
CONTENTS

Preface:

What this
book is
about...........................................................................................................................13

Those who believe that
Israel is behind the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria—hiding behind a
“false flag” designed to implicate the Syrian government—have very good reason
to believe in such a scenario.

In fact, as my book, Final Judgment, which
documents the role of Israel’s Mossad in the assassination of John F. Kennedy,
first pointed out at far back as 1994, the use of “false flags” by Israel’s
Mossad to cover up its role in worldwide assassination conspiracies and other
criminal activity had been utilized time and again: “Arabs,” “radical Muslims,”
“the Mafia,” “right-wing extremists,” and even environmentalists, among others,
have repeatedly taken the fall for crimes committed by the Mossad or carried
out under its coordination.

The use of “false flag”
operations by Israel and its Mossad has been documented repeatedly since the
Jewish State first came into being.

What follows is an overview
of some other notable instances in which Israel utilized “false flags” in its
international criminal endeavors.

Perhaps the best-known
instance in which Israel used a “false flag” to cover its own trail was in the
infamous Lavon Affair in
which, in July of 1954, there was a series of bombings in Cairo and Alexandria,
Egypt. Among the targets were the libraries of the United States Information
Service in both cities. In fact, the bombings were an operation by Israeli
Military Intelligence who hoped both Egyptian President Nasser and the outside
world would believe the attacks were carried out by militant Egyptian Muslim
fundamentalists angry at Nasser’s friendly relations with the U.S. and
Britain.

Israel’s ultimate purpose
was to destabilize Nasser’s relationships with both the U.S. and Britain and
compel the British to withdrawal from their bases on the Suez Canal (although,
in fact, in the end, no British targets were bombed, the initial plan
notwithstanding).

According to Colonel
Benjamin Gibli, Israel’s chief of military intelligence and the senior army
officer responsible for sending the final signal to Cairo to initiate the
bombings, he had been given his orders by Defense Minister Pinchas Lavon whose
instructions were as follows:

“[Our goal is] to break the
West’s confidence in the existing [Egyptian] regime . . . The actions should
cause arrests, demonstrations, and expressions of revenge. The Israeli origin
should be totally covered while attention should be shifted to any other
possible factor. The purpose is to prevent economic and military aid from the
West to Egypt.”

The operatives placing the
bombs were Egyptian Jews working for Israeli intelligence. However, Egyptian
security uncovered the plot and eleven people were taken into custody. In the
end, two were executed. The others were sentenced to long prison terms.

Ultimately Israel’s
involvement in the affair became public and Israel was rocked in the wake of
the scandal. Competing political elements in Israel used the scandal as a
bludgeon against their opponents. But the truth about Israel’s use of a “false
flag” had come to international attention and demonstrated how it was willing
to needlessly endanger innocent lives as part of its strategy to expand its
global influence.

To the degree that it is
recognized for what it was—a “false flag” attack by Israel—the Lavon Affair is
an acknowledged event in history, that has been documented even in multiple
“mainstream” sources.

But the Lavon Affair was
just one of many false flag operations by Israel, and over the years, in the
pages of The Spotlight (forerunner of AMERICAN FREE PRESS) international
correspondent Andrew St. George focused on a number of the more notorious
incidents. Here are a few of them:

• A shadowy “right wing”
group known as “Direct Action” was accused of the attack on Goldenberg’s Deli
in Paris on August 9, 1982. Six people died and 22 were injured. The leader of
“Direct Action” was one Jean-Marc Rouillan who had been operating in the
Mediterranean under the cover name of “Sebas” and who had been repeatedly
linked to the Mossad. All references to Rouillan’s Mossad links were deleted
from the official reports issued at the time.

However, the Algerian
national news service—which had ties to French intelligence—blamed the Mossad
for Rouillan’s activities. Angry French intelligence officers were believed to
have leaked this information to the Algerians. Several top French security
officials quit in protest over this cover-up of Mossad complicity in Rouillan’s
crimes. However, other Mossad false flag operations also took place on French
soil.

• On October 3, 1980, a
synagogue on Copernicus Street was bombed in Paris. Four bystanders were
killed. Nine were injured. A worldwide media frenzy followed the incident.
Reports held that “right wing extremists” were responsible. Yet, all of the
“right wing extremists” who were questioned were released. In the upper
echelons of French intelligence, the finger of suspicion was pointed at the
Mossad.

• On April 6, 1979, the
same Mossad terror unit suspected of the Copernicus carnage blew up the heavily
guarded plant of CNIM industries in southeast France, where a consortium of
French firms was building a nuclear reactor for Iraq. The Mossad salted the
site of the bomb blast with “clues” followed up with anonymous phone calls to
police suggesting the sabotage was the work of an environmentalist group.

• On June 28, 1978, Israeli
agents exploded a bomb under a small passenger car in the Rue Saint Anne,
killing Mohammed Boudia, an organizer for the Palestine Liberation Organization
(PLO). Immediately afterward, Paris police received anonymous phone calls accusing
Boudia of involvement in narcotics deals and attributing his murder to the
Corsican Mafia. A thorough investigation subsequently established that Mossad
special-action agents were responsible for the terrorist killing.

• In October, 1976, the same
Mossad unit kidnapped two West German students—Brigette Schulz and Thomas
Reuter—in Paris. Planted “clues” and anonymous phone calls made it

• In February 1977, a
German-born, naturalized U.S. citizen named William Jahnke arrived in Paris for
some secretive business meetings. He soon vanished. Paris police were
anonymously informed Jahnke had been involved in a South Korean bribery affair
and “eliminated” when the deal went sour. A special team from SDECE, the leading
French intelligence agency, determined Jahnke had been “terminated” by the
Mossad, which suspected him of selling secret information to the Libyans. The
SDECE learned Jahnke had been “fingered” to the Mossad by his own former
employer, the CIA.

• One of Israel’s most
outrageous “false flag” operations involved a wild propaganda story aimed at
discrediting Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi—one of Israel’s favorite enemies. In
the early months of the administration of President Ronald Reagan, the American
media began heavily promoting a story that a “Libyan hit squad” was in the
United States for the express purpose of assassinating Reagan. This inflamed
public sentiment against Libya and there were repeated calls for blood.

Suddenly, however, the “hit
squad” stories vanished. In fact, it was ultimately discovered that the source
of the story was one Manucher Ghorbanifar, a former Iranian SAVAK (secret
police) agent with close ties to the Mossad. Even The Washington Post
acknowledged that the CIA itself believed that Ghorbanifar was a liar who “had
made up the hit-squad story in order to cause problems for one of Israel’s
enemies.”

TheLos Angeles Times itself had already blown the whistle on
Israel’s scare stories. “Israeli intelligence, not the Reagan administration,”
reported the Times, “was a major source of some of the most dramatic published
reports about a Libyan assassination team allegedly sent to kill President
Reagan and other top U.S. officials . . . Israel, which informed sources said
has ‘wanted an excuse to go in and bash Libya for a long time,’ may be trying
to build American public support for a strike against [Qaddafi], these sources
said.”

In other words, Israel had
promoted the former SAVAK agent to Washington as a reliable source. In fact, he
was a Mossad disinformation operative waving a “false flag” to mislead America.
This was yet another Israeli scheme to blame Libya for its own misdeeds, this
time using one “false flag” (Iran’s SAVAK) to lay the blame on another “false
flag” (Libya).

• Israel’s Mossad was
almost certainly responsible for the bombing of the La Belle disco in West
Berlin on April 5, 1986 in which an American serviceman died. Claims were made
that there was “irrefutable” evidence the Libyans were responsible and President
Reagan responded with an attack on Libya. However, intelligence insiders
believed the Mossad concocted the “evidence” to “prove” Libyan responsibility.
In the end, West Berlin police director Manfred Ganschow cleared the Libyans,
saying, “This is a highly political case. Some of the evidence cited in
Washington may not be evidence at all, merely assumptions supplied for
political reasons.”

• On April 18, 1986, one
Nezar Hindawi, a 32-year-old Jordanian was arrested in London after security
guards found that one of the passengers boarding an Israeli plane bound for
Jerusalem, Ann Murphy, 22, was carrying a square, flat sheet of plastic
explosive in the double bottom of her carry-on bag. Miss Murphy told security
men that the detonator (disguised as a calculator) had been given to her by her
finance, Hindawi. He was charged with attempted sabotage and attempted
murder.

Word was leaked that
Hindawi had confessed and claimed that he had been hired by General Mohammed
Al-Khouli, the intelligence director of the Syrian air force. Also implicated
were others including the Syrian Ambassador in London. The French
authorities warned the British Prime Minister there was more to the case—that
is, Israeli involvement. This was later confirmed in reports by the Western
press.

• In 1970, King Hussein of
Jordan was provided with incriminating intelligence that suggested the PLO was
plotting to murder him and seize power in his nation. Infuriated, Hussein
mobilized his forces for what has become known as the ‘Black September’ purge
of the PLO. Thousands of Palestinians living in Jordan were rounded up, some of
the leaders were tortured, and in the end, masses of refugees were driven from
Jordan to Lebanon.

New data, coming to light
after the murder of two leading Mossad operatives in Cyprus suggested that the
entire operation had been a Mossad covert action, led by one of its key
operatives, Sylvia Roxburgh. She contrived an affair with King Hussein and
served as the linchpin for a major Mossad coup designed to destabilize the
Arabs.

• In 1982, just when the
PLO had abandoned the use of terrorism, the Mossad spread disinformation about
“terror attacks” on Israeli settlements along its northern border to justify a
full-scale military invasion of Lebanon. Years later, even former Foreign
Minister Abba Eban, admitted the reports of “PLO terrorism” had been contrived
by the Mossad.

• It is also worth noting
that the attempted assassination—in London—of Israel’s Ambassador to England,
Shlomo Argov, was initially blamed upon the PLO and was cited by Israel as one
excuse for its bloody 1982 incursion into Lebanon. In fact, the diplomat was
one of Israel’s “doves” and inclined toward a friendly disposition of Israel’s
conflict with the PLO and the least likely target of PLO wrath. What’s more,
one of the suspects in the crime was found carrying a “hit list” which actually
included the name of the head of the PLO office in London.

Thus, it appears that the
assassination attempt was carried out by the Mossad—under another “false
flag”—for two purposes: (a) elimination of a “peacenik” considered friendly
toward the Palestinians; and (b) pinning yet another crime on the PLO.

These instances cited here
are but a handful of Mossad-orchestrated “false flag” operations blamed on a
wide variety of alleged “suspects.”

(…)

CHAPTER SIXTEEN:

“The Big Winner Today
is Israel . . .”

Like
millions of other Americans, my first reaction on the morning of September 11,
2001, upon learning of the events that were taking place in New York City and
at the Pentagon—just a few miles from my home on Capitol Hill in Washington—was
to “reach out and touch someone.” So I called my brother at his home in
Pennsylvania—not far, in fact, from the location of where United Airlines
Flight 93 was soon to come to an untidy end.

My
sister-in-law answered the phone and I blurted out what was foremost in my
mind. “Well,” I said, “they did it.”

At this
juncture I was assuming that Arab or Muslim terrorists fed up with U.S.
favoritism toward Israel were responsible for the attacks.

I was
suggesting to my sister-in-law that it was essentially the fault of the
Israelis—and their powerful lobby in America—that the tragedy had happened. Had
it not been for U.S. policy, I was asserting implicitly, the attacks would
never have taken place.

However, my
sister-in-law didn’t read my comments that way.

She
responded, laughing, and said, “Oh, you think the Jews did this?”

Knowing
that, for many years, I had been considered a somewhat “notorious” critic of
Israel and of the Jewish lobby in America, my sister-in-law was assuming,
perhaps, the worst—or rather, the most likely.

And it was
then that it hit me.

What my
sister-in-law had presumed were my suspicions was precisely what I did believe,
although, until that moment—surprisingly, in retrospect—I hadn’t realized it
myself.

And I
responded, “No, what I meant was that America’s all-out pro-Israel policies
resulted in a backlash by the Arabs and that Arab terrorists did this. But”—I
added—“the more I think about it, I do believe that Israel is behind this.

“They did
this to turn America against the Arab world. This is precisely the kind of
thing Israel would do,” I said. “And mark my words, there will be evidence that
Israel was behind it, even if they cover it up, just as they did with the
Kennedy assassination.”

I will
remember that conversation for the rest of my life.

But at the
time—despite my knowledge of the corruption of the government and the media and
of the mendacity and wickedness of Israel and its lobby in America—I never realized
how absolutely right I would turn out to be.

So it was
that I closed that prophetic conversation with my sister-in-law and—along with
the rest of my colleagues at the Capitol Hill office of American Free Press—I was glued to television and radio for the
rest of the afternoon—with an occasional glance at the Internet—watching . . .
and waiting, wondering what was to come next. Certainly, the whole world was
watching.

I heard
local news reports about a car bomb exploding near the Pentagon. Now, today,
the official story is that “it was only a rumor.”

And I heard
the local news reports describing a fire at the Old Executive Office Building,
next to the White House. Today, again, that’s just “another rumor.”

It seems
that everything and anything that didn’t ultimately match the official version
of events was a “rumor”—more often than not, they said, “a rumor from the
Muslim world.”

What was
not a rumor from the Muslim world, however, was an article lying on my desk
that I had clipped from The Washington Times
on September 10, just one day before.

The front
page story in the Times revealed that
top U.S. Army analysts believed that the Mossad was “ruthless and cunning, “a
wildcard” that “has [the] capability to target U.S. forces and make it look
like a Palestinian/Arab act.”

The Times reported that this explosive and
highly revealing assertion appeared in a 68-page paper prepared by sixty
officers at the United States Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies
(SAMS), a Fort Leavenworth-based training ground for up-and-coming Army
officers. The Army paper called Israel’s armed forces a“500 pound gorilla” that
is “known to disregard international law to accomplish [its] mission.”

The
negative comments about Israel appeared in a SAMS paper putting forth a plan
for enforcing an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord requiring an international
peace-keeping force of some 20,000 troops stationed in Israel and in a
newly-created Palestinian state.

That the
SAMS proposal factored in the existence of a Palestinian state was actually an
affront by the American Army officers to Israel, which has never fully accepted
the idea of a Palestinian state.

In light of
the suggestion by U.S. Army officers that Israel might attempt to disrupt U.S.
and international peacekeeping efforts in the Middle East and disguise the
crimes as those of Palestinian or Arab forces, the events of September 11,
2001—one day after The Washington Times
reported this story—take on a new light.

With all of
this mind, following my conversation with my sister-in-law, I pondered the
possibility—in my mind, a likelihood—that the terrorist attacks in New York and
Washington were a false flag originating from Israel. And, like many people
were doing, I turned to the Internet. I started doing Google searches pairing
such terms as “Israel” and “terrorism” with key words connected to the events
of that day.

And as a
consequence, I stumbled upon an internet website (stratfor.com) that I’d never
seen before but which, I soon realized, was produced by some influential people
who had some influential followers. The website was the voice of one George
Friedman, a former CIA analyst and a high-priced private consultant considered
an “authority” on the subjects about which he and his colleagues—a bevy of
former intelligence and diplomatic figures—aired their opinions on a steady
basis.

What
Friedman said on 9-11, only hours after the attack on the World Trade Center,
provided an absolute underscoring of my own thesis that Israel was ultimately
behind the events that had taken place that day. Friedman wrote in no uncertain
terms:

The big winner today, intended or not, is the
state of Israel. Israel has been under siege by suicide bombers for more than a
year. It has responded by waging a systematic war against Palestinian command
structures. The international community, particularly the United States, has
pressured Israel heavily to stop its operations. The argument has been made
that the threat of suicide bombings, though real, does not itself constitute a
genuine threat to Israeli national security and should not trigger the kind of
response Israel is making. Today’s events change all of this.

“The big
winner” Friedman said, was Israel. The events of that day—still unfolding
(including not far from me at the Pentagon)—changed everything vis-a-vis U.S.
policy toward Israel, he said.

You can imagine my sense of vindication. Here was a Jewish supporter of
Israel with substantial credentials in the world of intelligence essentially
confirming the very suspicions I had outlined in my conversation with my perhaps
a bit-incredulous sister-in-law hardly more than an hour or two before.

Friedman
actually seemed to be gloating that now that Americans had been (conveniently,
for Israel’s interests) victimized by terrorism, that: 1) Americans had now
being galvanized against Israel’s enemies; 2)that the terrorist acts
effectively put the United States in a position in which it could no longer
criticize Israel; and that 3)Americans would be forced to be “dependent” on
Israel (not vice versa):

First, the United States no longer can argue
that Israel should endure the bombings. Moving forward, the domestic American
political mood simply won’t tolerate such a stance.

Second, Israel now becomes, once again, an indispensable
ally to the United States. The United States is obviously going to launch a
massive covert and overt war against the international radical Islamic movement
that is assumed to be behind this attack.

Not only does this align U.S. and Israeli
interests but it also makes the United States dependent on the Israelis—whose
intelligence capabilities in this area as well as covert operational
capabilities are clearly going to be needed.

What
Friedman did not explain was why Israel’s vaunted “intelligence capabilities”
did not help stop prevent these acts of terrorism from happening in the first
place.

In any
event, Friedman stated that “There is no question, therefore, that the Israeli
leadership is feeling relief.” He contended the alleged Muslim terrorists
touted in the media as the likely 9-11 terrorists had calculated that their
acts would split the Arab world and force Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to
become more accommodating to Israel.

At the time
Friedman wrote his remarkable analysis, there was officially “no evidence” as to
who was actually behind the attacks—although the major media was already
chanting that “the Muslims” (and even Osama bin Laden) were most likely to
blame. However, Friedman was already speculating heavily, grinding the axe for
not just Islamic terrorists, but for an Islamic state itself. He wrote:

The greatest question right now is this: Which
Islamic state was involved in the attack? We suspect that there was such
involvement. The sophistication required means of communication and transport
available only to states. Afghanistan does not have the international
facilities needed. We assume that Sudanese and Iraqi diplomatic communications
and transport are both too closely monitored to be useful. If that is true,
what other nation provided support facilities for this operation? Answering
that question speaks to the future of the region.

Friedman
candidly answered the question “Who benefits?” by saying it was Israel. But his
question—“What other nation provided support facilities for this operation?” may
have been, in the end—in light of what we now know of evidence pointing toward
Israeli state sponsorship of the 9-11 tragedy—the most thought-provoking (if
ironic) aspect of Friedman’s essay, however obviously unintentional it may have
been.

So it
was—very early on 9-11—that George Friedman was effectively putting in
writing—although from an obviously different perspective from my own—the very
reasoning that led to my “controversial” assumption as to what really lay
behind the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

And needless
to say, I made good use of Friedman’s remarks in the days ahead, as I plowed
forward, along with my colleagues at American
Free Press, in trying to bring the real truth about 9-11 to our readers.

And let it
be stated without ambiguity: From the beginning, American Free Press (AFP) was the one national newspaper countering
the 9-11 lies that were being foisted on the American people and daring to
point the finger of blame in the direction of Israel.

The first
issue of AFP published immediately after Sept. 11 (dated Sept. 24) went to the
printer on Sept. 14. That issue made it clear our staff was already raising
questions about what really happened.

The lead
story, by Willis Carto, asked frankly: “Who benefits?” and pointed out that
Israel—above all—stood to benefit as a consequence of the United States
becoming more embroiled in the Middle East thanks to the likely reverberations
from 9-11.

That issue
of AFP also featured an article by yours truly, Michael Collins Piper, pointing
out there was evidence pointing to Mossad involvement in the first World Trade
Center attack in 1993, noting this revelation had first appeared in an article
in TheVillage Voice on August3, 1993 by respected Jewish-American
investigative journalist Robert I. Friedman (not to be confused with George
Friedman of stratfor.com).

After that
first attack on the trade center, I had written an article for TheSpotlight
reflecting on Friedman’s report and yet both The Spotlight’s story (and Friedman’s original report) continued to
be ignored, even by many so-called “conspiracy theorists.”

And in the
wake of 9-11, even many in the “alternative media” who were raising questions
about the 9-11 attacks preferred to avoid the possibility of Mossad
involvement, studiously refusing to address what Friedman had revealed about
the first WTC attack in 1993.

So—at the
very outset—AFP broached the No. 1 taboo relating to 9-11, that even many 9-11
dissidents are still hesitant to mention today. AFP was indeed the one national
media voice—perhaps the one international media voice—that said, from the
beginning, that Israel was certainly the chief suspect in the 9-11 tragedy.

In fact,
the second issue of AFP issued in the wake of 9-11 (dated Oct. 1but printed
Sept. 21), featured the front page headline asking the question, “Did Israelis
Have Foreknowledge?” That issue of AFP included an article (by yours truly)
entitled “U.S. Army Officers Say: ‘Mossad May Blame Arabs, ’which focused on
the aforementioned Sept.10 report (published in The Washington Times) describing the study from the Army’s School
of Advanced Military Studies which called the Mossad a “wild card” capable of
committing a terrorist attack and blaming it on the Arabs.

My article
tied the military’s assessment to George Friedman’s contention that “the big
winner” on 9-11 was Israel. The article also reiterated Robert I. Friedman’s
revelation of the Mossad link to the first World Trade Center attack that I had
reported the week before in AFP.

The balance
of my article provided an extended overview of the Mossad’s historic use of
false flags in global terrorism—the details of which now appear in this present
book in Chapter One.

Yes, I was
piling it on—driving home the point that Americans needed to ponder the
likelihood Israel had been involved in orchestrating 9-11. In fact, I was one
of the first print journalists—if not the first and certainly the first with a
wide-reaching audience—to focus on both Friedman’s revealing comments and the
report from the local Washington Times
on the U.S. Army’s concerns about the Mossad’s false flag trickery, both
stories of critical importance that could have otherwise been lost in the
massive avalanche of press frenzy following 9-11.

Later, as
the media added garbage upon garbage onto its mound of “evidence” that “the Muslims” were not only responsible
for 9-11 but also—horror of horrors—conveying the Hellish lie it was actually
Israel behind the tragedy, one pro-Israel propagandist, Harold Brackman of the Simon
Wiesenthal Center, prepared a special report entitled 9/11 Digital Lies: A Survey of Online Apologists for Global Terrorism.

One bit of
“evidence” of Muslim perfidy cited by Brackman was a quote attributed to Sheikh
Muhammed Hussein Fadlullah of Hizbollah on Islam On Line on Sept. 15, 2001. The
sheikh’s offending remark was that “Israel is the main beneficiary of this
terrible tragedy.”

In fact, most
of those who expressed outrage at the sheikh’s words probably had no idea the
sheikh’s remarks precisely echoed what our respected former CIA official, George
Friedman, a Jewish American, had said immediately after the 9-11 attacks.

And note,
too, what former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said about what the
9-11 attacks meant for relations between the United States and Israel. The
Sept. 12, 2001 issue of TheNew York Times quoted Netanyahu as
saying frankly, “It’s very good,” then adding hurriedly, “Well, not very good, but
it will generate immediate sympathy.”

In 2008
Netanyahu reaffirmed his view that Israel was indeed a beneficiary of 9-11. On
April 16, 2008, the online edition of Israel’s Ha’aretz newspaper reported
that, speaking at Bar Ilan University, Netanyahu had said, “We are benefiting
from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the
American struggle in Iraq.”

Ha’aretz
cited the other prominent Israeli newspaper, Ma’ariv, as having said that
Netanyahu had also added that those events “swung American public opinion in
our favor.”

Perhaps not
coincidentally, in the aftermath of the bombing at the Boston Marathon in early
2013, Ron Dermer a diplomatic advisor known to be especially close to
Netanyahu—once again serving as prime minister—told Jewish leaders in New York
that, just like the 9-11 attacks, the Boston bombing would increase American
support for Israel. The April 19, 2013 issue of Ha’aretz reported that Dermer
said:

The bulk of the American people stand firmly
with Israel and identify with Israel. If you can look, historically, there was
a big change after 911, and I am sure that after the tragic bombing in Boston,
people will identify more with Israel and its struggle against terrorism and we
can maintain that support.

Again—Who
benefits?

On that
historic day—September 11, 2001—I watched thousands of frightened federal
workers streaming down Pennsylvania Avenue on Capitol Hill—right past the
office of American Free Press—on foot
and in their vehicles, fleeing Washington into the suburbs, not knowing whether
further attacks lay ahead.

This was a
chilling sight, made all the more unsettling because it was a bright, sunny,
really beautiful day, one of the most gorgeous days we had all summer—hardly a
day (one would think) that could mark the first day of the last days of
mankind.

That
evening, as the sun was going down and my colleague, Willis Carto, and I made
our way back up Pennsylvania Avenue in the direction of the U.S. Capitol—then
being said to have been one of the original terrorist targets—I surveyed the
eerily empty street before us and I turned to Willis and commented, “Well, if
there’s one thing for certain, it’s this: The world will never be the same
again.”

Willis
nodded and—with a notably somber look on his otherwise usually animated
face—remarked quietly, “You can say that again.”

Today, many
years later, I do know this much: What we have been told as to “what happened
on 9-11” is anything but the truth. The American government and the mass media
have been lying from day one about what happened. They lied about 9-11 just as
they lied about the Oklahoma City bombing and the JFK assassination before it.

And I know
why the U.S. government lied. And I do know who was ultimately responsible for
each and every one of those tragedies. And it’s the 9-11 tragedy that we’ll be
talking about in the pages ahead.

(…)

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN

The Curtain of Deceit: A Fabric of Lies;
Blame Bush, the New World Order, the CIA,
But by No Means Blame Israel!

By way of being an essay on the parameters of popular discussion and
so-called “independent” dissent on the official version of what really happened
on September 11, 2001. Why many self-styled “9-11 truth seekers” fail to look
at the big picture.

It
is an article of faith among the vast majority of Americans—even many who have
doubts about the “official” story of what really happened on September 11,
2001—that the 9-11 attacks were carried out by fanatic Muslims who were under,
at the least, the spiritual discipline (if not the immediate guidance) of Osama
bin Laden.

Although
there are growing numbers who are beginning to believe that much evidence points
toward the possible culpability of at least some American defense and
intelligence personnel in having foreknowledge of—or involvement in—the 9-11
attacks (presumably in order to advance a covert agenda involving U.S. imperial
ambitions—a point this study has no problem in accepting) the truth is that
there is also a wide-ranging array of data indicating Israel’s Mossad not only
had advance knowledge of the attacks and allowed them to proceed but, in fact,
that Israeli intelligence directed and facilitated the 9-11 attacks.

Needless
to say, this proposition is met with squeals of outrage—mostly from what Pat
Buchanan referred to as Israel’s “Amen Corner” in this country—but in these
pages we will present this thesis as a plausible alternative explanation of the
events of 9-11.

All
of this will be uncomfortable reading for those who rely on the so-called “mainstream”
sources of “news,” but we hasten to point out, up front, that if it were
discovered that Israel did have foreknowledge of—or direct involvement in—the
events of 9-11, none of those news sources would ever rush forward with the
evidence.

It
is an indisputable fact—hysterical protests to the contrary—that the primary
major news sources in America—both publications and broadcast outlets are—if not
owned or controlled outright by Jewish families and interests sympathetic to
Israel—otherwise dominated at the highest editorial levels by persons
sympathetic to Israel or under the direction of those who are. This is not a
“myth from the Muslim world.”

It’s
a cold, hard fact, not honestly subject to dispute.

On
the same token, there are naive folks who would rise up in their most righteous
indignation and say, “Well, if Israel was involved in the 9-11 attacks, then
our president, George W. Bush, would have said so.”

We
think not. The truth is that if the Bush administration had brought forth such
evidence, the president would have been shouted down. He would have been
declared “an anti-Semitic hate-monger” and hounded out of office by an enraged
media, probably declared incompetent by the Cabinet and removed through the
mechanism of the 22nd Amendment which permits the Cabinet to remove a president
from office if he is found incapable of holding the office.

So,
in the wake of 9-11, Junior Bush chose what might be called the “path of least
resistance” and opted instead to target Afghanistan, a longtime center of
intrigue and the target of historic imperial design.

(Nor
should we ignore the fact that this same administration was littered with
pro-Israel operatives among the now-infamous “neo-conservative” network, a
clique of intriguers who would have certainly undercut any serious attempt by
real patriots inside the government to expose Israeli involvement in the 9-11
attacks.)

Ultimately,
of course, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq came into the gun sights, although—as we now
know too well—the pro-Zionist ideologues in the Bush administration were eager
to include Iraq as a target immediately in the wake of the 9-11 attacks.

Now
here’s where things get a bit tricky.

As
we’ve noted, there are quite a few self-styled “independent researchers” who,
to their credit, questioned the official version of 9-11.

However,
there is one constant thread in much of their “research”: they studiously avoid
mentioning the possibility of Israeli foreknowledge or involvement in the
matter. Instead, they direct attention to CIA and FBI bungling and/or
foreknowledge of possible terrorist attacks.

In
their boldest ventures into discussion outside popular understanding of 9-11,
these “researchers” focus on long-standing Bush family (and Bush circle)
financial connections to Arab (usually Saudi) interests, as though that
“proves” Junior Bush either had foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks or that, in
some way, the Bush family is culpable because some Arab princes in Riyadh may
have been aware of what lay ahead.

But
then, again, this is all based on a presumption—faulty, we shall see—that the
responsibility for 9-11 did indeed lie in the laps of those stereotypical “rich
Arabs” who have always been favorite villains in the Jewish-controlled mass
media, including, especially, Hollywood.

(That’s
the same Hollywood that Internet big-mouth Alex Jones once claimed was
controlled by “the Arabs.” And that’s the same Alex Jones—whose rise to wide
fame sponsored by Jewish-owned Sirius satellite network—who says “the New World
Order” was behind 9-11. And that’s the same Alex Jones who touted the idea
there was a “Saudi connection” to the Boston Marathon bombing. Need we say
more?)

Of
course, the reasoning behind such prevarication regarding Bush family ties to
the Arabs (and the implication that the Bushes and their Saudi friends were to
blame for 9-11) is stilted in and of itself.

According
to even the official version of events, Osama bin Laden, alleged 9-11
mastermind, was a maverick rebel who abandoned his ties to the Western-oriented
Arab leaders and broke away to lead an Islamic fundamentalist rebellion.

Those
who “discover” Bush connections to the Arab elite don’t seem to understand that
this given fact doesn’t particularly gibe with their “independent” version of
events.

However,
because, again, these “dissenters” have fallen into the trap of avoiding even
to dare mention possible Israeli involvement, they force themselves to shape
their own “alternative” history of 9-11 to accommodate the thesis that “the
Arabs did it” (on behalf of Bush!).

And
since Bush and his family and their associates did have a historic—although
largely little-known to the American public—involvement with the Saudi and
Arabic elite, these researchers conclude this must somehow “prove” that Bush
and the Arabs were in cahoots in bringing about the 9-11 attacks.

Now
all of this does not mean that these researchers were not on the right track
when they suggested there was more to bin Laden than meets the eye—that is,
that bin Laden was initially a creature of the CIA (and of Bush-connected
intelligence circles in the American elite). In fact, bin Laden did have a
long-standing connection to the operations of the CIA in its Middle East
intrigues in league with Israel’s Mossad.

But
then, again, it is simply not “politically correct” to mention the misdeeds of
Israel and the Mossad. And even those who do dare to mention that bin Laden and
many of the Islamic fundamentalists in his sphere of influence who were
involved in fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan did work directly
with the Mossad are certain to be called . . .“anti-Semitic.” And today in America,
that—as my old friend, the late Dallas Texas Naylor would say—is “a very
serious charge.

Two
“independent researchers” who have a history (like many others) of looking the
other way when it comes to Israel and 9-11 bear mentioning. They are John Judge
and Michael Ruppert.

Judge,
a longtime wader—not a swimmer—in the sea of conspiracy research (he never goes
out too far, usually up to his knees, but no further) can scream “CIA” as loud
as the little old lady sitting on her rocking chair on the veranda, but the
word “Mossad” has never been a part of his vocabulary. For years he has
assembled seminars on the JFK assassination—and more recently, on 9-11—but one
will never find Judge daring to mention the Mossad, at least not in a negative
sense.

Judge
is not particularly reliable either. In the early 1990s he asserted that Mark
Lane—the longtime critic of the CIA who was among the first to point the finger
directly at the CIA in the assassination of President Kennedy—had always
avoided mentioning CIA involvement in the assassination, despite the
easily-documentable fact that as far back as August 7, 1970 Lane had written an
article for The Los Angeles Free Press (LAFP)
entitled “CIA Killed JFK to Keep War Going,” a point that Lane underscored in
far greater detail in a full-length LAFP special report headlined “JFK Murder
Solved: Killing Coordinated by CIA.”

So,
as we said, Judge is not reliable, but he has acted as a skilled disinformation
specialist and, for obvious reasons, has widely been suspected of being some
sort of officially-sanctioned “gatekeeper” charged with the dubious responsibility
of attacking serious critics of high-level misdeeds and muddying the waters of
inquiry all the further.

The
case of Ruppert, is a bit more complicated, but equally telling.

Although
Ruppert’s endeavors contributed to the cause of independent research into the
intrigues of the intelligence community, particularly some of the international
drug-arms-and-money laundering escapades of the CIA (which, more often than
not, have involved the Mossad, although the Mossad is seldom, if ever, mentioned
in Ruppert’s rendering of events), Ruppert has demonstrated a remarkable
capacity, obviously, to give the Mossad a “clear” as far as any criminal
culpability is concerned. And so it was with his “investigation” into 9-11.

Note
this: At a speech at Portland State University, Ruppert energetically denounced
what he said were rumors being circulated by what he called the “right wing”
that Israel was involved in 9-11. Ruppert said that was all a bunch of “bull-pucky,”
a choice term that may or not may be Yiddish in origin. (And I’m only being
slightly facetious here.)

In
the next breath, Ruppert praised Israel, saying the Israelis did have specific
advance knowledge about the impending attacks and warned the United States to
beware. God bless Israel!

Then
Rupert cited a number of media reports that appeared just after 9-11. The
Israelis—in Ruppert’s assessment, at that point—were essentially “the good
guys”—a wonderful ally—whose warnings had been stupidly ignored (or perhaps
deliberately suppressed) by bunglers or traitors—take your pick—in U.S. defense
and intelligence.

As
additional evidence of Israeli foreknowledge, Ruppert cited the fact that
Israel’s Zim shipping company actually closed its office in the World Trade
Center (WTC) one week before the attacks, losing money in the process by
breaking its lease. Ruppert then mournfully raised the question as to why “our”
government did not likewise warn Americans in the WTC about the impending
tragedy.

While
Ruppert’s allegation about Zim’s withdrawal from the WTC was quite correct—and
reported early on by American Free Press (AFP), a newspaper Ruppert was careful
never to mention since AFP is forthrightly critical of Israel—Ruppert seemed to
miss the point that even raising the story about Zim was considered “beyond the
pale” and “anti-Semitic” since—the official story goes—Israel had absolutely no
foreknowledge of the impending attacks.

Although,
initially, Ruppert wanted to place all of the blame for 9-11 on the Bush
administration and absolve Israel of any blame whatsoever, he began to shift
his own line somewhat by the time his book on 9-11, Crossing the Rubicon,
was finally committed to print.

In
that volume, Ruppert actually went so far as to finally suggest that Israel had
indeed played a part in 9-11, but that it was acting as an agent of the United
States ruling elite. Ruppert was essentially suggesting that Israel (however
much it actually benefited from the consequences of 9-11) was, if anything, a
secondary partner of the United States intriguers whom Ruppert charged were
responsible for the tragedy.

Israel,
as presented by Ruppert, was some sort of victim of U.S. intrigue, forced to
act—perhaps against its will (poor little country)—as a pathetic tool of U.S.
imperialism.

Ruppert
went to great lengths in his book to assure his readers that he was “not
anti-Semitic” and quite apologetically insisted that two of his chief allies in
the preparation of his book were Jewish and therefore “proof” that he, Ruppert,
was not anti-Semitic.

Yet,
despite his protestations, Ruppert’s book hardly presented much of a case at
all that Israel did have a part in the 9-11 attacks. In fact, the rather
physically substantial book, if placed under an analytic magnifying glass, was
largely devoted to peripheral issues and analysis that hardly shed any direct
light on 9-11 itself.

Although
the volume appeared to be quite an accomplishment if judged solely on its
length, it is actually quite diversionary, with the ultimate effect of
downplaying (really, negating) Israel’s role in 9-11.

Based
on the theory that “Oil Not Israel” was the motivating cause behind alleged
U.S. orchestration of the 9-11 attacks, when it is case of quite precisely the
opposite, the patently obvious obfuscation on this particular question by
Ruppert does direct attention to the fact that much of the material circulated
about 9-11 has actually been quite a bit of misinformation and, more
importantly, deliberate disinformation.

And
all of this, once again, underscores the need for an all-out open, un-biased
public inquiry into what really did happen.

In
the end, Ruppert astounded many in the 9-11 research community by declaring the
case “closed,” as though he alone had “found the answers” and that no more
need be said about the matter. It is no wonder then that genuine truth seekers
concluded that, from the beginning, Ruppert had been no more than another
“infiltrator,” a “gatekeeper” whose primary motive was to bury the truth,
rather than find it.

Now
that all is said and done, however, Rupert has largely been eclipsed, even
forgotten, but his initial influence in discussion of 9-11 was considerable and
indeed destructive.

At
this juncture it is appropriate to give credit where credit is due:

Victor
Thorn and Lisa Guliani of Wingtv.net were among the first to blow the whistle
on Ruppert and show him for the diversionary force he proved to be. Although
Thorn and Guliani took a lot of heat for daring to confront Rupert’s
prevarications head on, they were very much vindicated and are now widely
recognized for speaking truth to power in the course of their own effort to lay
bare the real facts about 9-11.

Thorn’s
own work, 9-11 Evil—issued under the auspices of American Free
Press—bears the distinction of being the first in-print work of consequence to
examine Israeli complicity in 9-11, later followed by his supplementary volume,
Made in Israel: 9-11 and the Jewish Plot Against America.

There
are other 9-11 researchers who don’t have the high profile of Michael Ruppert
but it has become all too apparent that many of the so-called “independent”
researchers are fearful of addressing the Israeli connection to 9-11, which,
consequently, directs (or misdirects) what they will (or will not) say about
9-11.

All
of this having been said, let us come to the key question . . .

Why
would Israel have an interest in allowing the 9-11 attacks to happen or, in an
even more sinister scenario which this book, False Flags puts forth,
actually perpetrate the tragedy?

The
answer is simple—so simple—that it might, quite ironically conversely, be “too
big” for the average American to understand. Earlier we heard how former CIA
analyst George Friedman had to say about why Israel was the immediate
beneficiary of 9-11 and he was right. But there’s more to the story and it’s
critical we examine it here and now.

The
historical record shows that in the year preceding the 9-11 attacks, Israel was
becoming a virtual world outcast—perhaps more than it had ever been—its
heavy-handed crackdown on the Muslim and Christian Palestinians a phenomenal
scandal that had resulted in global condemnation of Israel’s violence and
brutality.

Thousands
of people were marching in the United States—even in the United States, it
might be stressed—and millions were marching around the globe, loudly and
publicly and forcefully condemning Israel and vocally siding with the
beleaguered Palestinians.

For
the first time since Israel came into being in 1948, the tiny, yet powerful,
nation was widely perceived as a villain and a perpetrator, rather than as a
victim, by people outside the Arab world. Israel was under siege for its
misdeeds and its very right to exist was being called into question. Increasing
numbers of even Jewish voices were questioning the very viability of “the
Zionist project,” and its future.

In
addition, although American Christian fundamentalists remained steadfast
supporters of the Jewish state, leaders of many mainstream Christian churches
were beginning to rally behind the Palestinian cause.

The
situation for Israel was bad indeed—climaxed, just prior to September 11, by
the international conference on racism in Durban, South Africa. There, people
from around the globe were saying that Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians
was hardly different from the accounts of Nazi Germany’s treatment of the
European Jews.

It
was a bitter pill to swallow for many Americans who, until then, had perceived
Israel to be some sort of “special” nation loudly hailed for its bravery in the
face of war, a little country that had “risen from the ashes of the Holocaust.”
Even devotion to Israel on the part of America’s liberal community—which had
historically been a foundation of intellectual support for Israel—was beginning
to crack.

September
11, 2001 changed all that—almost instantaneously. The “news” that Islamic
fundamentalists—and largely natives of America’s staunchest Arab ally, Saudi
Arabia—were responsible for the slaughter of 3,000 Americans was equated by the
media (with intense, over-the-top enthusiasm, it might be said) as a reflection
of what “little Israel” had suffered for 50 years at the hands of those same
Arabs.

However,
the word “Israel” was seldom advanced in media commentary on that black day and
in the weeks and months that followed, at least in the context of “why”
American had been attacked on 9-11.

To
his credit, Alexander Cockburn, writing in The Nation, was one commentator who
bothered to mention that fact. The “attack on America” was presented as if it
had happened in some unusual vacuum, as if U.S. Middle East policy was
absolutely no part of the equation.

Instead,
the media was quick to ask the question, “Why do they hate us?” and the answer
was regularly supplied by such pro-Israel Jewish commentators as “terrorism
expert” Stephen Emerson and famed “Orientalist” Bernard Lewis, most notable
among those who arrogantly and condescendingly explained that “they hate us”
because “they” were “jealous” and “envious” of Western civilization, that
America is perceived as the pinnacle of Western civilization, that America’s
“democracy” and “way of life” were painful realities for the backward, savage
Arabs and Muslims who wanted to destroy it all.

The
Arabs and the Muslims also hated Judaism and Christianity, they said,
conveniently ignoring the fact that Muslims revere Christ and that there are
many Arabs who are Christians and have been for 2,000 years.

Seldom
was it mentioned that there was a widespread distaste within that Arab world,
not for the American people or their way of life, but instead for U.S.
government policies and a perception (an accurate one) that the pro-Israel
lobby in the United States had an inordinate influence on both the Congress and
the presidency, not to mention the mass media and other centers of power in
American life.

So
while these Zionist propagandists were busy telling us that “they hate us”
because of—well, almost everything—the media and the experts were careful to
avoid mentioning one very real reason that could have instigated the very type
of attack that Americans experienced on September 11. And this itself is quite
revealing, for it demonstrates that carefully-crafted curtain of deceit, drawn
together from a fabric of lies, that surrounded the 9-11 attacks from the
beginning.

While
it was certainly true that Muslim fundamentalists could have been motivated to
attack the United States because of its policies favoring Israel . . . that
possible motivation was never mentioned. The whole issue of U.S. Middle East
policy was suppressed.

And
while, admittedly, the word “never” is a strong and definitive word, it is
indeed largely correct. It was decided—virtually ruled—early on that “the
Muslims did it” and they did it because “they hate us” and the reason they hate
us is . . .well, certainly nothing to do with Israel, for God’s sake! Why
that’s ridiculous—just not true. Or so “they” said.

All
of this is particularly interesting, though, in that, in almost the same
breath, media commentators were crowing that the 9-11 attacks demonstrated the
need for the United States to further align itself with Israel, that Israel and
the United States were now as one, that, as one pro-Israel commentator put it
so insistently: “We are all Israelis now.”

Naturally,
the idea that Israel was the prime mover behind 9-11—although still not so
widely known within the general public—has created much distress for Israel and
its supporters. One advocate for Israel, a Canadian Jewish writer of
conservative bent, Jonathan Kay, has written an entire book declaiming against
those known as the “9-11 truthers.”

Although
Kay condemns any and all dissent against the official rendition of 9-11, he
reserves special ire for those who suggest Israel was behind that tragedy. But
what is especially revealing is that Kay openly acknowledges—even
celebrates—the role 9-11 played in firmly bringing the United States into the
Zionist camp. In his book, Among the
Truthers: A Journey Through America’s Growing Conspiracist Underground, Kay
writes:

If
the Holocaust and the reaction of the Jewish state jointly marked the first
great turning point in the modern history of anti-Semitism, 9-11 marked the
second.

Following
the attacks, supporters of Israel spoke of a silver lining. The war against militant
Islam suddenly was a global one. Now, the whole world would see and understand
the sort of nihilistic hatred that Israelis confronted every day.

. . . America’s fight became Israel’s fight.
Over the last decade, a period during which Republicans and Democrats [had]
fought over every other subject imaginable, support for Israel [remained] one
of the few issues to attract virtually unanimous bipartisan support.

Among war hawks on the Right, in particular,
the sudden identification of militant Islam as America’s greatest enemy capped
a startling transformation in the perception of the American Jewish community
[by the Right].

Whereas Jews might once have threatened the
American Right in their roles as communists, anarchists, trade unionists, civil
rights leaders, and Ivy League intellectuals, no Jew could ever be an Islamist.
Just the opposite:

The Jew was the perfect anti-Islamist, whose
zeal and reliability in the war on terrorism was hard-wired into his political
DNA thanks to six decades of Israeli warfare against Islamic terrorists in the
Middle East. [Kay’s emphasis.]

For
the first time in the history of Western civilization, the Jew’s “foreignness” and
mixed loyalties—to the United States, Israel, world Jewry—became a source of
respect and trust rather than suspicion.

Kay
finally lays it all on the line: The ultimate result of 9-11 . . .

The September 11 attacks changed America in a
thousand different ways. Perhaps the most ironic, given the terrorists’
intensely anti-Semitic ideology, was that it cemented the long process leading
to Jews’ full-fledged ascension into the American establishment.

In
fact—as we shall see—there is good reason to believe that Israel did play the
central role in bringing about the awful events of that terrible day. Let us
then proceed and demonstrate a likely scenario as to how Israel once again
utilized its tried-and-true tactic of employing “false flags” in orchestrating
the events of 9-11.

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

The Mossad Link(s)

to the First Attack
(in 1993)

on the World Trade
Center

As noted
earlier—and this is a point that cannot be overemphasized—American Free Press has been virtually the only media voice to
report what the late Robert I. Friedman revealed in the August 3, 1993 issue of
New York’s alternative weekly, The
Village Voice: namely, the Mossad connection to the first attack on the World
Trade Center on Feb. 26, 1993.

Freidman’s
revelations have been largely suppressed—even by many dissidents who question
the official version of 9-11—precisely because that report by this long-revered
investigative journalist—who happened to be Jewish—does raise the specter of
Israeli involvement in the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center.

And that’s
just not a realm into which many of the 9-11 dissidents want to go. It’s much
easier to say “Bush did it” or “the CIA did it” or “the New World Order did
it.” But don’t dare say: “The Mossad did it.”

However, in
the first issue of American Free Press
(dated Sept. 24) published after 9-11, I resurrected Friedman’s data about the
1993 attack in exploring the likelihood of Israeli involvement in 9-11.

The all-new
AFP report was headlined “Mossad Link to First WTC Bombing Raises Eyebrows” and
pointed out that Friedman’s original report “bears noting in the aftermath of
the terror of Sept. 11.”Here is what Friedman had revealed—eight years before:

According
to Friedman’s own sources in Israeli intelligence, Ahmad Ajaj, a
27-year-oldWest Bank Palestinian held in federal custody for conspiring to bomb
the World Trade Center, may have been a Mossad mole.

Arrested at
Kennedy Airport on September 1, 1992, after he arrived on a Pakistani
International flight from Peshawar carrying a forged Swedish passport and
bomb-making manuals, Ajaj was taken into custody, and subsequently pleaded
guilty to entering the country illegally.

(Ajaj’s
traveling companion was Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, described as an Iraqi who law
enforcement sources later said would turn out to be a “key player” in the 1993
World Trade Center bombing. Don’t forget About Yousef. Later in these pages we
will come to know him—and one of his uncles in particular—a little better.)

Although
the FBI identified Ajaj as a senior intifada terrorist, with links to Hamas,
the Palestinian Islamic fundamentalist organization, Freidman reported that Kol
Ha’ir, a respected Hebrew-language weekly published in Jerusalem, said Ajaj was
never involved in intifada activities or with Hamas or even the Palestine
Liberation Organization.

Instead,
according to Kol Ha’ir, Ajaj was actually a petty crook arrested in 1988 for
counterfeiting U.S. dollars out of a base in East Jerusalem. Ajaj was convicted
of the counterfeiting charges and then sentenced to two-and-a-half years in
prison.

Then, wrote
Friedman:

It was during his prison stay that Mossad,
Israel’s CIA, apparently recruited him, say Israeli intelligence sources. By
the time he was released after having served just one year, he had seemingly
undergone a radical transformation.

Friedman
reported Ajaj had suddenly become a devout Muslim and an outspoken hard-line
nationalist.

Then, Ajaj
was arrested for smuggling weapons into the West Bank, supposedly for El Fatah,
a faction of the PLO.

But
Friedman said this was actually a sham. Friedman’s sources in Israeli
intelligence said the arrest and Ajaj’s subsequent deportation were “staged by
Mossad to establish his credentials as an intifada activist.” According to
Friedman:

Mossad allegedly “tasked“ Ajaj to infiltrate
radical Palestinian groups operating outside Israel and to report back to Tel
Aviv. Israeli intelligence sources say that it is not unusual for Mossad to
recruit from the ranks of common criminals.

After Ajaj’s
deportation from Israel, he showed up in Pakistan, in the company of the
Mujahideen rebels who were fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan. And
this, in itself, could point further evidence that Ajaj was working for the
Mossad.

According
to Covert Action Information Bulletin (September 1987), the funding and supply
lines for the Mujahideen were the “the second largest covert operation” in the
CIA’s history.

However—according
to former Mossad operative Victor Ostrovsky (writing in The Other Side of
Deception)—those funding and supply lines for the Mujahideen were under the
direct supervision of Israel’s Mossad. Ostrovsky wrote:

It was a complex pipeline, since a large
portion of the Mujahideen’s weapons were American-made and were supplied to the
Muslim Brotherhood directly from Israel, using as carriers the Bedouin nomads
who roamed the demilitarized zones in the Sinai.

After
Ajaj’s ventures with the Mujahideen, he popped up in New York to befriend
members of a small so-called “radical” clique surrounding Sheikh Abdel-Rahman
later accused of being the mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing.

On February
26, 1993, the day of the bombing, Ajaj was “safe” in federal prison serving a
six-month sentence for entering the country on a forged passport. Later, he was
indicted for conspiracy in the bombing.

According
to Friedman:

If Ajaj was recruited by Mossad [Freidman’s
emphasis], it is not known whether he continued to work for the Israeli spy agency
after he was deported. One possibility, of course, is that upon leaving Israel
and meeting radical Muslims close to the blind Egyptian sheikh, his loyalties
shifted.

However,
Friedman also reported:

Another scenario is that he had advance
knowledge of the World Trade Center bombing, which he shared with Mossad, and
that Mossad, for whatever reason, kept the secret to itself. If true, U.S.
intelligence sources speculate that Mossad might have decided to keep the
information closely guarded so as not tocompromise its undercover agent.

Friedman
broke amazing ground with these revelations that were ignored by the mainstream
press and by many in the “alternative” media who were otherwise, in the
aftermath of the 9-11 tragedy, raising questions about the U.S. government’s
official version of events.

But here is
something that Friedman did not mention in his article—and which only came out
later . . .

The copy of
the infamous volume—described as “the Al-Qaeda Terrorist Training Manual”—that
received widespread publicity following the events of 9-11 had been uncovered
in the possession of Ahmad Ajaj, the Mossad undercover informant in the first WTC
attack.

And that
point speaks volumes.

However,
there’s much more to the story of the first WTC attack.

It also
turns out that the FBI itself had its own undercover informant inside the “Arab
bomb plot” and did nothing—repeat nothing—to prevent the tragedy from
happening.

The facts
indicate that the FBI had an informant inside the so-called “Arab terrorist
cell” that may have fronted for Israel’s Mossad in the World Trade Center
bombing.

Although Americans
were told the blind sheik, Omar Abdel-Rahman, was the mastermind of the
bombing, what they don’t know is that one of the sheik’s security guards, Emad
A. Salem, was an FBI informant who had filled in the FBI, in advance, of the
specifics of the bomb plot.

The FBI
officially severed its contacts with Salem seven months before the bombing.
However, in the aftermath of the tragedy, the FBI opened up relations with
Salem once again. At that time, however, Salem—unbeknown to the FBI—began
recording his exchanges with his FBI handler.

Salem’s
recorded conversations confirmed the FBI, in fact, had extensive prior
knowledge of the plot to bomb the trade center. The recordings indicate Salem
had told the FBI that he would sabotage the plot by replacing the explosive
components of the bomb with an inert powder, after which time the FBI could
come in and capture those involved in the conspiracy.

In his
book, The Medusa File, Craig Roberts,
a well-regarded 26-year veteran police officer and U.S. Marine Vietnam veteran,
outlined the parameters of this outrageous scandal that has been buried by the
mainstream media. According to Roberts:

It seems that the FBI actually had more than a
simple “informant” inside Rahman’s terrorist cell. What they actually had was an
Egyptian intelligence officer named Emad Salem, who reported directly to his
FBI control agent, Special Agent John Anticev. Salem, it turns out, was hired
to infiltrate the Rahman group long before the bombing took place, and
consistently reported on the activities of the radicals—including their plans to
conduct bombings in the New York City area.

What the FBI did not know was that Salem
recorded his conversations with his control agents. The tapes tell a far
different story than the official versions of the “investigation.”

According to TheNew York Times, which
managed to obtain secret transcripts of some of the conversations, the FBI knew
in advance when the bomb was going to be planted, who was going to do it, the
names of everyone in the terrorist cell, and where the truck was rented.

But worse, one tape went even further. It seems
that the FBI not only knew about the planning, they actually assisted the bombers
in obtaining and constructing the bomb!

The original FBI plan was for the informant to
provide a non-explosive substance that would be labeled “ammonium nitrate,”
then use it to construct a “bomb” that would not go off.

All the FBI needed to show in court was the
elements of conspiracy and intent. It would be a classic “sting” operation and the
FBI would come out in the media as heroes—a much-needed polishing of their
tarnished image since the earlier debacle at Ruby Ridge, Idaho.

Instead of arresting the conspirators when they
received inside information that the bombing was being planned, the FBI instead
kept their source in place and continued to monitor the progress of the
terrorists in planning and preparing for their goal. According to the
transcripts, the plan was changed and the informant was directed to provide the
terrorists with real explosive materials.

The reasoning behind this may have been simply
that Showing “intent” might not be enough to make a terrorism case in court,
and that if real explosives were discovered then the case would make itself. But
whatever the reason, the plan moved into stage two: building the bomb.

According to reports and transcripts, Salem was
instructed to not only provide the materials, but to give instruction and help
in building the bomb itself . . . In [one] transcript [Salem] admitted [to his
FBI handlers] that he used government funds to procure the materials and build
the bomb for the Rahman group, as he was instructed to do.

There’s
another interesting Mossad connection to the first attack on the World Trade
Center that—again—seems to have been lost in the shuffle, ignored by the
“brave” 9-11 dissidents who prefer to blame “the New World Order” and “the
Illuminati” or even the CIA for the crime.

On March
19, 1993, writing in Middle East International, respected journalist Jane
Hunter noted the little-known story behind the story of the Palestinian,
Muhahham A. Salameh, who actually rented the van said to have been used in the
trade center bombing. Miss Hunter wrote:

Officials have kept a tight lid on the possible
involvement of an Israeli woman in the case. Salameh gave the name and phone
number of Guzie Hadass as a reference when he rented the van. According to the
complaint read at his court appearance, Hadass’s phone was at a Jersey City
apartment.

FBI agents found a letter addressed to him
there (its contents were not disclosed) and, according to the complaint, “tools
and wiring, and manuals concerning antennae, circuitry and electromagnetic
devices.”

The complaint notes that an expert interpreted
all this was evidence that a “bomb maker” had been in the apartment; it said that
a dog trained to sniff explosives “responded positively.” The International
Herald Tribune of 8 March [1993] quoted FBI spokesman Joe Valiquette as saying:
“We have no idea whether Hadass is a member of the Israeli Mossad, but even if
it were true, we wouldn’t tell you anyway.”

These
details about the first World Trade Center tragedy paint a starkly different
picture of what happened than what we have been told by the FBI and their
allies in the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith—the Jewish lobby group
generally known as “the ADL.”

Now why,
you may ask, do we bring in—seemingly from out of the blue—a reference to the
FBI’s allies at the ADL?

Well, the
ADL connection is quite relevant. It just so happens that Neil Herman, a
high-ranking former ex-FBI official who helped cover up the Mossad connections
to the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993—as well as, obviously,
FBI foreknowledge of the planning of the crime—was later appointed in 1998 as
chief of the “fact finding” (i.e. spy) division of the ADL, one of the Mossad’s
chief American conduits.

A 27-year
FBI veteran who formerly headed the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, Herman
was not only the director of the FBI’s “investigation” into the World Trade
Center attack, but also the suspicious FBI inquiry into the downing of TWA
Flight 800 off Long Island on July 16, 1997.

A
high-level cover-up artist par excellence—one with obvious sympathies for
Israel and the Jewish agenda, demonstrated by his association with the
ADL—Herman exemplified the long-standing covert relationship between the FBI
and the ADL, forged by J. Edgar Hoover prior to World War II, that was clearly
“going public” with a vengeance.

As ADL
spymaster, Herman was positioned to provide the ADL far more wide-ranging
contacts within the FBI and the intelligence community than ever before, but he
did not remain in the post for long.

Herman soon
popped up on the “crisis management team” at Burson-Marsteller, the global public
relations giant.

Presumably,
Herman found greener—as in money—pastures at Burson-Marsteller, but the ADL had
been able to tout the prestige of listing a former high-ranking FBI official
and “expert on terrorism” on its letterhead, which was probably the game all
along.

Herman, by
the way, was eventually succeeded as chief of spying operations at the ADL by
one Mark Pitcavage whose antecedents link back directly to the intrigues by the
ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center in the wake of the Oklahoma City
bombing.

While the
ADL and the SPLC were busy pushing the spotlight toward “the militias” as the
milieu from which, they said, Timothy McVeigh emerged, the two groups were
doing everything they could to suppress public knowledge about the enigmatic Mossad-connected
SPLC informant Andreas Strassmeir, adamantly dismissing any mention of
Strassmeir and his associate Kirk Lyons in relation to the Oklahoma bombing as
being conspiracy theory nonsense.

It was
during this time the aforementioned Pitcavige—through a group called “the
Militia Watchdog”—was fronting for the ADL-SPLC spinmeisters, supplying data to
the media about the “dangers” posed by the militia groups which, if truth be
told, were not so big and not so powerful and largely quite tame. Then, according
to the ADL:

In early 1996, Pitcavage became involved
with—and later the Research Director of—the SLATT Program (State and Local Anti-Terrorism
Training Program), a Justice Department program designed to educate senior
state and local law enforcement officials on domestic terrorism issues.

It is conducted jointly by the Federal Bureau
of Investigation and the Institute for Intergovernmental Research, a non-profit
organization. Mark Pitcavage was a Senior Research Associate at the Institute.

While involved with the SLATT program,
Pitcavage provided training to thousands of law enforcement officers at every level
and in every section of the country, including the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.

These
details about both Pitcavige and Herman—both of whom had FBI associations prior
to coming to the ADL—give us a revealing window into the manner in which the
Mossad—through the venue of groups such as the ADL and the SPLC—has been able
to penetrate both law enforcement at local, state and federal levels and the American
intelligence community.

And these
details also help us understand why Mossad connections to such matters as the
JFK assassination, the Oklahoma City bombing and the 9-11 tragedy remain under
wraps.

It is
another ugly profile of the manner in which the Mossad has been operating under
false flags on American soil, and one which—quite obviously—raises the
question: “If the Israelis were responsible for the first attack on the World
Trade Center in 1993—using Arabs as “false flags”—did they come back in 2001 to
finish the job?”

Don’t bet
against it.

CHAPTER NINETEEN:

The Dancing Israelis

Who Celebrated on 9-11

Immediately
after the 9-11 attacks, CBS anchor Dan Rather appeared on David Letterman’s
late night program and declared, in a voice dripping with outrage and disgust,
that, even as the tragic events of 9-11 were unfolding, a “cell” of America-hating
Arabs had been spotted on the roof of a building across the river from
Manhattan in New Jersey, videotaping the World Trade Center tragedy and celebrating
as the trade towers collapsed.

However,
good newsman that he is, Rather was nonetheless dead wrong about the identity
of those celebrating the tragedy.

In fact, as
American Free Press (AFP) pointed out
in a front-page story in its Oct. 1, 2001 issue (which went to press on Sept.
20), those “Arabs” seen dancing merrily, giving each other “high fives” and
clearly celebrating the collapse of the trade towers were Israelis—Jewish Israelis—citizens
of the nation said to be America’s best ally. And AFP said, flat out, that
there was evidence to believe that these Israelis were, in fact, assets of
Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad.

For daring
to point out these facts, AFP was accused of “peddling anti-Israel conspiracy
theories.”

But the
story that unfolded in the wake of AFP’s report—which, by the way, constituted
the first serious national recitation of the facts surrounding this
affair—proved to be even more broad-ranging and more disturbing and pointed to
Mossad foreknowledge of—and involvement in—the 9-11 attacks.

Scattered
media reports mentioned that five “Middle Eastern” men had been seen
“celebrating” the WTC attack, naturally leaving people with the impression that
the men were Arabs or Muslims.

However
what is interesting is that, in the early days following 9-11, when the story
of that particular group of Israelis did leak into the media and the media did,
in fact, mention that the men were Israelis, the media turned the tables in
Talmudic fashion and cited the story as evidence that the Arabs and the Muslims
and assorted anti-Semites and critics of Israel were generating disinformation
to discredit Israel.

For
example, the Sept. 28-30, 2001 issue of USA Today cited the story of the five
Israelis (calling them “Jews” and not identifying their nationality) and
attempted to suggest that the story was a myth.

USA Today—which calls itself “America’s
newspaper”—described the story as one of the “unsubstantiated rumors that
implicate Israel” in the 9-11 attacks and one of which “many in the Muslim
world are endlessly chewing over and recycling.

But as
those who have bothered to follow the story know well, the so-called “rumor”
was hardly a rumor, but, in fact, the cornerstone of a much bigger story than
initially might have been imagined.

It took
some six months before America’s oldest and most respected Jewish community
newspaper—the New York-based Forward—finally confirmed for the record—in its
March 15, 2002 issue—that these Israeli Jews (those same ones described as an Arab
“cell” by Dan Rather) were connected to the Mossad.

Forward
published information that elaborated upon details first entered into the
worldwide news record by AFP and which were subsequently picked up and given
widespread distribution on the Internet.

Later we’ll
discuss, in more detail, what Forward had to say. However, in the meantime, here’s
what AFP reported—some six months before—on Oct. 1, 2001, citing reports
appearing at the time in local newspapers in New Jersey and New York and
elements from its own inquiries. The essentials of the AFP story were as
follows:

• At least three different groups of Israelis
were taken into custody after eyewitnesses reported seeing them celebrating the
9-11 attacks in three different locations across the river from Manhattan in
New Jersey.

• All three of these locations had clear views
of the World Trade Center and were ideal places from which to document the
tragedy.

• In at least two of the cases, the men were,
in fact, videotaping and some witnesses seemed to believe that the Israelis had
already set up their recording devices even before the first attack on the
first trade tower hit on 9-11 (and thus had advance knowledge of the attacks).

• One group was in Liberty State Park in Jersey
City, another in Liberty Park in Union City, New Jersey and a third group was
in Weehawken, New Jersey on the roof of an Israeli-owned moving company, Urban
Moving Systems.

• In each of these three instances the Israelis
questioned by the police were connected to Israeli-owned moving companies
operating out of New York and New Jersey.

In fact,
the five Israelis seen in Jersey City—taken into custody by police in East
Rutherford, New Jersey—were driving a van belonging to the same Urban Moving
Systems upon whose roof the other group of five Israelis were also seen
celebrating (and videotaping) the events at the World Trade Center.

Naturally,
as any honest observer would have to conclude, it was highly unlikely (to say
the least) that all of this—three different groups of Israelis connected to the
same network of moving companies all acting in the same fashion in three
different locations—could hardly be—as defenders of Israel claimed—“just a
coincidence.”

In fact,
further details emerging from the saga of those who became known as “the dancing
Israelis” pointed in quite sinister directions that are, by any estimation,
hard to explain.

• AFP noted
in reporting on the arrest of the Israelis captured in the Urban Moving Systems
van in East Rutherford, The Bergen [New Jersey] Record revealed on Sept. 12,
2001 that “sources close to the investigation said they found other evidence
linking the men to the bombing plot.” The source told the Record that:

There are maps of the city in the car with
certain places highlighted. It looked like they’re hooked in with this. It
looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State
Park.

The Record
also reported that “sources also said that bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if
they had detected explosives.”

According
to an Israel National News report on Oct. 26, 2001, these Israel detainees were
suspected of “plotting to blow up” a New York bridge, although this allegation
never reached most Americans who were being told of “Muslim plots” against
Americans.

Initially—and
this is interesting—other news sources suggested that explosives had been found
in the van.

When, in
fact, the “official” story from the U.S. government came out—denying the
existence of any such explosives —this gave supporters of Israel the
opportunity to say that it was a “myth” that these detained Israelis were in
the possession of explosives.

Thus, they
said, the entire story of the “dancing Israelis” was just based on reckless and
inaccurate news reports that were later retracted and upon—of course—plain old
hostility to dear little Israel. Anti-Semites and evil Muslims were
collaborating to blame Israel for 9-11, or so they said.

But the
fact that there were (presumably) no explosives in the van does not, however,
preclude the possibility, as the Bergen Record’s source had contended that the
Israelis were “hooked in” with what happened on September 11, considering all
of the suspicious activity by three different groups of Israelis all connected
to the same network of Israeli moving companies.

And
contrary to stories put out by supporters of Israel, the Bergen Record did not
retract its original story, for the fact is that the Record never claimed that
there were explosives in the van.

So the
Record had nothing to retract. Claims that the Record story was wrong are, in
short, wrong.

In the
meantime, however, these Israelis were never charged with any crime relating to
the events of 9-11. Instead, they were turned over to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service and quickly deported. This recalls, of course, the
deportation, ten days after the Oklahoma City bombing, of the “right wing”
Israeli terrorist, Sharon Toval, a virtual lookalike for accused Oklahoma
bomber Timothy McVeigh.

The names
of these suspects were never released to the public—or at least their names were
never published or broadcast in the media.

However, it
was not only in the New York-New Jersey area that Israelis working for
Israeli-owned moving companies were taken into custody and suspected of
involvement in terrorist-related activities. Israeli-connected moving companies
seemed to proliferate in the events surrounding 9-11. For example, on Dec. 24,
2001 AFP reported that:

On Oct. 17, the Pulitzer Prize-winning
Pottstown (Pa.) Mercury reported that
“two men whom police described as Middle Eastern” were detained in the
Pottstown area (which is just northwest of Philadelphia) after being found with
“detailed video footage of the Sears Tower in Chicago”—the tallest building in
the world, widely mentioned as a possible terrorist target.

The
Mercury did not identify the men’s nationality, but their names were Moshe
Elmakias and Ron Katar. “Moshe” is a Hebrew name which is not likely to have
been bestowed on a Muslim or an Arab. A woman named Ayelet Reisler, in their
company, was also detained. She had a German passport in her name and
medication in a different name.

The two men worked for a company known as
“Moving Systems Incorporated.”

Again,
supporters of Israel protested that it was “just a coincidence” that several
different suspiciously-acting groups of Israelis would be working for moving
companies and have detailed videos of the WTC disaster and the Sears Tower,
another perceived potential terrorist target.

It was
subsequently learned that there was a connecting network of Israeli-owned
moving companies alongside Urban Moving Systems and Moving Systems, Inc. that
operated under such names as Advance Moving System, AAA Van Lines, State to
State Van Lines, America’s Best Movers and Quality Moving Storage—not to
mention Moshe’s, which maintained a huge brick 15 story warehouse—employing
hundreds of young Israelis—just outside the Holland Tunnel in Jersey City.

But, in the
end, it was the five Israelis arrested on the roof of Urban Moving Systems
(UMS) in Weehawken who received the most attention from the media and from
independent investigators. They were brothers Paul and Sivan Kurzberg, Omer
Marmari, Yaon Shmuel and Oded Ellner, all Israelis and all employees of UMS.

On Oct. 8,
2001, TheNew York Times finally reported on the five Israelis treating it as
some sad quirk of fate for five innocent men. The Times did not report—as did AFP—that there may have been more than one
Israeli-connected moving company involved and that there were actually other
Israeli nationals taken into custody after the bombing.

And in
Israel the plight of these lads also got some attention. The mother of one of
the detainees told the Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, that the FBI had questioned
her son as to whether he was an agent of Israel’s intelligence agency, the
Mossad.

However, why
the FBI might suspect that Mossad agents—assets of our valued ally Israel—may
have been involved in the so-called “Arab terrorist” attack is a question that
was carefully ignored by the mainstream media in America.

But these
five young Israelis became very controversial, by anyone’s estimation and they
had some high-level support.

On Nov. 23,
2001, Forward, the respected New York-based Jewish newspaper, reported that
“top-ranking Israeli diplomats” had intervened with Attorney General John
Ashcroft on behalf of the aforementioned Paul Kurzberg, his brother, and the
three other young Israelis.

In its
issue dated Dec. 17, 2001—which went to press on Dec. 7—AFP pointed out that
Attorney General Ashcroft had released one of those Israelis—Paul
Kurzberg—despite the fact that, according to a Nov. 21 report buried deep
inside The New York Times, Kurzberg
“had trouble” with a seven-hour polygraph test administered by the FBI.

Although
Kurzberg had reportedly done “better on a second try,” the Israeli suspect
still flunked both times. In fact, the Times
had reported, Kurzberg “refused on principle to divulge much about his role in
the Israeli army or subsequently working for people who may have had ties to
Israeli intelligence.”

Yet, Ashcroft
sent Kurzer and his four associates home to Israel, the suspicions surrounding
them notwithstanding.

It was upon
returning to the fabled land of milk and honey that one of the young Israelis, Oded
Ellner, made remarks that today are a part of the lore surrounding suspicion of
Israeli involvement in 9-11.

We refer to
the often-heard claim that Ellner actually admitted in an interview on Israeli
television that he and his colleagues had foreknowledge of the impending attack
on the World Trade Center and that, he said, the reason why he and his friends
were videotaping was that “our purpose was to document the event.”

This is a
story that has captured the imagination of many sincere folks who do believe—as
I do—that Israel not only had foreknowledge of the 9-11 attacks but actually
orchestrated them.

Some
quickly jumped upon this as some sort of “confession” and circulated the word
on the Internet that Ellner had admitted—on television—that he and his
associates had advance knowledge of the attack on the trade center and were,
therefore, already set up and prepared to videotape the tragedy.

However,
the story surrounding Ellner’s televised remarks is actually a distraction
and—I am here to tell you without hesitation—is not “proof” of anything, no
matter how much people want to believe it is.

While it is
absolutely true that, while being interviewed on Israeli television, Ellner
admitted he and his friends were videotaping the event, what Ellner said was
hardly a confession to anything.

What he was
saying, in answer to a question as to why they were videotaping, was
essentially: “The reason why we had a video camera there was to film what was
happening.”

So, today,
while many 9-11 skeptics are often heard telling friends and family—“I’ve seen
the video of Ellner saying those words and admitting he and his buddies knew
the attack was going to happen and that’s why they were filming it”—the truth
is that what those people have seen (circulated on the Internet) is a brief
excerpt from the Israeli television interview (conducted in Hebrew) with an
English-language voiceover translating Ellner’s comment into an awkward and
stilted declarative sentence that has now been immortalized thusly: “Our
purpose was to document the event.”

Now this is
not to say that Ellner and the “dancing Israelis” did not have foreknowledge of
the impending attacks. As we shall see later, there was much more about Ellner
and his friends to be unveiled. But this particular comment has clearly been
taken out of context.

While these
young men—and the other Israelis seen videotaping the world trade center from
at least one other location—almost assuredly did know in advance of the attacks
and had, accordingly, set up their video equipment to “document the event,” the
bottom line question is this: How likely is it that they would have
confessed—even by accident—in a television interview conducted before a live
audience?

A few
folks—who are so determined to believe that Ellner’s words are indeed some sort
of confession—will insist forever that Ellner’s “confession” is proof of
Israeli foreknowledge and involvement in 9-11. But it isn’t. It’s another one
of those stories that “sound good” but one which open-minded and objective
folks interested in alternative views relating to 9-11 can not—and will
not—find convincing.

So, with
that brief digression into one of the more prominent legends surrounding 9-11, we
will set aside the discussion of our Dancing Israeli friends from Urban Moving
Systems for the moment.

However, there
is much, much more to their story, and we’ll come back to them later.

In fact, as
it was discovered, there were quite a few more other Israelis operating on
American soil and they, too, were taken into custody following 9-11 and at
least some of them were suspected by the FBI of possible involvement in the
9-11 tragedy.

In fact—as American Free Press reported on Dec. 17—The Washington Post had admitted on
November 23 that among a total of some 60 young Israeli Jews picked up by the
FBI in the wake of the terrorist attacks, there were a handful actually being
held on suspicion of involvement in the terrorist acts of 9-11.

And
remember—this admission came from a leading voice of the “mainstream” media,
although, certainly, it was not given wide play in the pages of the Post or elsewhere in the media. So the
truth is that while most of the Israelis arrested and detained since Sept.11
were held on immigration charges, not suspected of involvement in terrorism, there
were exceptions. According to Post
staff writer John Mintz:

In several cases, such as those in Cleveland
and St. Louis, INS officials testified in court hearings that they were “of
special interest to the government,” a term that federal agents have used in
many of the hundreds of cases involving mostly Muslim Arab men who have been
detained around the country since the terrorist attacks.

An INS official who requested anonymity said
the agency will not comment on the Israelis. He said the use of the term “special
interest” means the case in question is “related to the investigation of Sept.
11.”

All of the
60 Israeli detainees, according to the Post,
were supposedly “observing a time-honored tradition in their country—touring
the world after their mandatory service in the Israeli military.” The Post said “a number of them had served
in counter-terrorist units in Israel.”

Although
referring to Israel as a “close U.S. ally in the fight against terrorism,” the Post pointed out that one Israeli
detainee, Liron Diamant, said that while
he and his friends had first been mistaken as Arabs, the FBI still nonetheless
conducted an “hours-long” interrogation after their Israeli identity had been
determined and that they were “questioned in detail about their Israeli
military service.”

Clearly,
the fact the young men were Israelis did not preclude the suspicion, on the
part of at least some good people in the FBI, that these Israelis might have
had a hand in the terrorist attacks, a point that might confound those who
believe all American law enforcement and intelligence officials are found
firmly in Israel’s camp and devoted to the principle that Israel is a valuable
ally that would do America no harm.

But the
whole Israeli connection to 9-11 went even further.

On Dec. 12,
the “Special Report With Brit Hume” on Fox News featured reporter Carl Cameron
who unveiled a staggering report on a wide-ranging Israeli espionage ring on
U.S. soil.

Cameron’s
report on Fox was so immediately controversial primarily because he asserted
flat out there was evidence these Israelis were surveilling the reputed 9-11
terrorists prior to the Sept. 11 tragedy. On Dec. 24, AFP summarized Cameron’s
report in which he stated in part:

There is no indication the Israelis were
involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, but investigators suspect that they may have gathered
intelligence about the attacks in advance and not shared it.

A highly-placed investigator told Fox News
there are “tie-ins,” but when asked for details flatly refused to describe
them. [The investigator said:]

“Evidence linking these Israelis to 9-11 is
classified. I cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It is
classified information.”

During the
segment, host Brit Hume asked Cameron: “What about this question of advance
knowledge of what was going to happen on 9-11? How clear are investigators that
some Israeli agents may have known something?” Cameron responded:

It’s very explosive information, obviously, and
there’s a great deal of evidence that they say they have collected. None of it
necessarily conclusive.

It’s more when they put it all together. A
bigger question, they say, is “How could they not have known?” [That is] almost
a direct quote [from the investigators].

The Fox
report indicated that prior to Sept. 11 as many as 140 other Israelis had been
detained or arrested in what was described by Cameron as “a secretive and
sprawling investigation into suspected Israeli espionage.”

According
to Cameron:

Investigators are focusing part of their
efforts on Israelis who said they are art students from the University of
Jerusalem or Bezalel Academy and repeatedly made contact with U.S. government personnel
by saying they wanted to sell cheap art or handiwork.

Documents say they “targeted” and penetrated
military bases, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, dozens of government facilities and even secret offices and
unlisted private homes of law enforcement and intelligence personnel.

After the
Fox report, there was an angry response from the Israeli lobby in America. The
Dec. 21 issue of the Jewish weekly, Forward, reported Fox and Cameron were
“under fire” from supporters of Israel for having dared to bring the matter to
public attention. However, Forward also gloated that “the rest of the American
media” had “barely noted” the Fox reports.

Whatever
the case, Fox News pulled the transcriptions of Cameron’s broadcast reports off
its Internet web site under pressure from such groups as the Anti-Defamation
League of B’nai B’rith, but Cameron told Forward he continued to stand behind
his story.

Meanwhile,
the famed British intelligence and military analysis publication, Jane’s
Information Group, noted the peculiar absence of reporting in the American
media on this matter and commented:

It is rather strange that the U.S. media . . .
seem to be ignoring what may well prove to be the most explosive story since the
Sept. 11 attack, the alleged breakup of a major Israeli espionage operation in
the United States which aimed to infiltrate both the Justice and Defense departments
and which may also have been tracking Al-Qaeda terrorists before the aircraft
hijackings took place.

So at the
very least, there was strong evidence that, at the very least, Israeli
intelligence operatives on American soil almost certainly had specific advance
knowledge of the impending terrorist attacks on the United States but America’s
“ally,” Israel, did not report this information to American authorities.

And that
alone is an aspect of 9-11 that—for the most part—remains unknown to the broad
swath of the American people.

On March 4,
2002, the story on the Israeli “art student” espionage ring popped back up when
the French daily, Le Monde, carried an update, relying largely on reporting
arising from an independent investigation by the Paris-based internet
newsletter, Intelligence Online (IO), which, in turn, had been directed by the
sources made available to Fox.

Citing the
work by Fox, Le Monde pointed out how Fox refused to cooperate with Le Monde,
saying it was “a problem,” but that Fox refused to be specific. Le Monde noted
that IO had received a copy of a report prepared by an officer of the U.S. Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA) and others from the Immigration and Naturalization
Service. A spokesman for the DEA, Will Glaspy, confirmed to Le Monde that the
DEA “holds a copy” of that report.

The DEA
document revealed many of the Israelis had addresses in South Florida very
close to the homes of Arabs allegedly involved in the 9-11 attacks. For
example, the alleged hijacking ringleader, Mohammad Atta, lived at 3389 Sheridan
St. in Hollywood, Fla., while a group of the Israelis resided only a few blocks
away, at 4220 Sheridan.

On March 5,
Reuters reported Le Monde’s article (even including the allegation of Israeli
foreknowledge of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks).

Reuters,
however, cited an un-named FBI spokesman who called it a “bogus story,”
saying—despite all the evidence to the contrary—that “there wasn’t a spy ring.”

On March 6,
the Associated Press reported the story but did not mention, however, that the
Israelis were believed to have had intimate knowledge relating to the 9-11
terrorists.

On March 6,
WashingtonPost staff writers John Mintz and Dan Eggen reported that Attorney
General Ashcroft’s spokeswoman at the Justice Department, Susan Dryden,
dismissed the story as “an urban myth that has been circulating for months.”
She added: “The department has no information at this time to substantiate
these widespread reports about Israeli art students involved in espionage.”

So it was
that, again and again, the specter of Israeli foreknowledge and involvement in
the events of 9-11 reared its ugly head. And even the major media was being
forced to acknowledge it. But the story of the Dancing Israelis was not about
to go away either.

In any
event, at long last—as we mentioned at the outset of this chapter—the Jewish
newspaper Forward finally acknowledged on March 15, 2002 that there was indeed
a Mossad connection to the strange circumstances surrounding the multiple
groups of Israelis (with links to a network of Israeli-controlled moving
companies) who were observed acting suspiciously (and then taken into custody)
on 9-11. The young Israelis were, in fact, assets of Israel’s Mossad.

As a
consequence of the new admissions by Forward, we learned much more about at
least that one specific group of five Israelis connected who were picked up in
New Jersey after famously “high fiving” and celebrating the collapse of the
World Trade Center as they videotaped the event from the roof of the
Israeli-controlled Urban Moving Systems (UMS) company in Weehawken, New Jersey.

The
Israelis in question were brothers Paul and Sivan Kurzberg, as well as Omer
Marmari, Yaon Shmuel and Oded Ellner, the last of whom made the famous remarks
on Israeli television—described earlier—about the intent of Ellner and his
colleagues to “document the event.”

According
to Forward, UMS was “a moving company with few discernable assets” that closed
up immediately after the federal authorities began investigating its
activities. The owner of UMS, Dominic Otto Suter “fled to Israel” after being questioned by the
FBI.

Forward
said one of its sources admitted that UMS was a Mossad-connected operation:

According to one former high-ranking American
intelligence official, who asked not to be named, the FBI came to the conclusion
at the end of its investigation that the five Israelis arrested in New Jersey
last September were conducting a Mossad surveillance mission and that their
employer, Urban Moving Systems of Weehawken, N.J., served as a front.

After their arrest, the men were held in
detention for two-and-a-half months and were deported at the end of November, officially
for visa violations.

However, a counterintelligence investigation by
the FBI concluded that at least two of them were Mossad operatives, according
to the former American official, who said he was regularly briefed on the
investigation by two separate law enforcement officials.

“The assessment was that Urban Moving Systems
was a front for the Mossad and operatives employed by it,” he said.

“The conclusion of the FBI was that they were
spying on local Arabs but that they could leave because they did not know
anything about 9/11.”

However, he added, the bureau was “very
irritated because it was a case of so-called unilateral espionage, meaning they
didn’t know about it.”

Forward
said the FBI, the Justice Department and the Immigration and Naturalization
Service refused to discuss the case.

Forward
reported that its source said that after the United States confronted the
Israeli government, Israel privately admitted that UMS was a Mossad front.
Citing its U.S. intelligence source, Forward said:

The nature of the investigation changed after
the names of two of the five Israelis showed up on a CIA-FBI database of
foreign intelligence operatives, he said. At that point, he said, the bureau
took control of the investigation and launched a Foreign Counterintelligence
Investigation, or FCI.

FBI investigations into possible links to the
Sept. 11 attacks are usually carried by the bureau’s counterterrorism division,
not its counterintelligence division. “An FCI means not only that it was
serious but also that it was handled at a very high level and very tightly,”
the former official said. That view was echoed by several former FBI officials
interviewed.

In fact, it
seems, the two specific Mossad assets were the Kurzberg brothers, Paul and
Sivan, although, needless to say, the other Israelis were obviously in their
sphere of influence and on the payroll of a Mossad front operation. The bottom
line is that American Free Press had
been on the mark from the very beginning. There was indeed a Mossad connection to
9-11, although the article in Forward, in many respects, read very much like an
attempted cover-up.

The Forward
recounting of the saga of the five Israelis was woven into a larger story
describing controversy surrounding the separate reports of espionage by the
so-called Israeli “art students.” And although (as noted earlier) a spokesman
for Attorney General John Ashcroft had dismissed the “art student” affair as an
“urban myth,” Forward effectively exposed Ashcroft’s prevarication, admitting
that:

In March 2001, the federal National
Counterintelligence Executive issued a warning urging employees to report all
contact with people describing themselves as Israeli art students. It said some
had gone to private residences of senior U.S. officials under the guise of
selling art.

“These individuals have been described as
aggressive,” the warning said. “They attempt to engage employees in
conversation rather than giving a sales pitch.” However, the warning added that
there may be two groups involved, one with an “apparently legitimate
money-making goal while the second, perhaps a non-Israeli group, may have ties
to a Middle Eastern Islamic fundamentalist group.”

Naturally, Forward defended Israel, proclaiming:
“Far from pointing to Israeli spying against U.S. government and military
facilities . . . the incidents in question appear to represent a case of
Israelis in the United States spying on a common enemy, radical Islamic
networks suspected of links to Middle East terrorism.” Forward contended that tensions between the U.S. and Israel arose
not because the United States believed the Israelis were spying on Americans
but because the Israelis had failed to advise the United States that they were
engaged in spying against the Arab terrorists on American soil.

Forward’s suggestion that two such groups were
operating (and that one may have been a “non-Israeli group” posing as Israelis)
was interesting, for it raises the logical counter-question: Was there also group
of Israelis operating in the United States posing as Arabs—a possibility that,
in fact, had first been broached by AFP as far back as Dec. 24, 2001 (a point
to be examined in greater detail later in these pages.)

On June 21,
2002, ABC’s weekly newsmagazine,“20/20”—featuring hostess Barbara Walters—was
forced to acknowledge growing public belief that Israeli intelligence had
foreknowledge of—or was perhaps involved in—the 9-11 terrorist attacks, a
belief stimulated from awareness of the story of the Dancing Israelis.

In a
segment entitled “The White Van,” ABC tackled the problematic fact that these
several groups of Israeli nationals in the New York-New Jersey area had been
taken into custody on suspicion of having been involved in some way with the
terrorist attacks.

ABC—of
course—never mentioned American Free
Press (AFP) but it’s clear that AFP’s considerable outreach stimulated
discussion of the story in the first place. However, it is no surprise ABC went
into a damage-control mode on Israel’s behalf. Those at the highest levels of
ABC are, to put it simply, known for their sympathies toward Israel.

ABC’s
admissions were grudging at best. ABC would not admit flat out, that the
Israelis were Mossad operatives. All ABC would say was that was that there were
those in official circles in the United States who said the Israelis were
Mossad. They said others don’t think so.

But if they
were Mossad agents, ABC assured the audience, they weren’t doing anything against
the United States. At most they were simply monitoring Arab and Muslim groups
in the New York-New Jersey area. That was a good thing, ABC explained.

Thus, ABC’s
presentation sought to refute the evidence and defuse the belief that the
Israelis had any involvement in—or even foreknowledge of—the terrorist attack.
Barbara Walters summarized the story by lisping smugly, “I hope we’ve put all
these rumors to rest.”

Not hardly,
Barbara.

(…)

CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE:

Iron-Clad Evidence of
Israeli Foreknowledge:

The 9-11 Commission
Cover-Up of

the Mossad’s Capacity
to Monitor the

Activities of Osama
bin Laden

Even
if—however unlikely—Israel was not the prime mover behind the 9-11 terrorist
attacks, there’s absolutely no question Israel’s Mossad simply had to have had
advance knowledge of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks if, as the official story
suggests, Islamic fundamentalists under the discipline (direct or indirect) of Osama
bin Laden were responsible for the tragedy. And this, as we shall see, is
absolutely critical to understanding, in the end, how Israel was indeed the
driving force behind 9-11.

The
evidence for this came from post-9-11 revelations about the Inslaw scandal of
the 1980s first publicized nationally in The
Spotlight, but which was carefully suppressed by the Jewish-controlled
“mainstream” media in America. Here is the story . . .

As early as
Oct. 10, 2001, Britain’s Guardian quoted the candid remarks of Mohammed Heikel,
who has been described as the Arab world’s foremost political commentator. No Muslim
extremist by any means, Heikal—who was closely associated with the secular
Egyptian regime of President Gamal Abdul Nasser—asserted flat out, that, based on
his knowledge, there was simply no way that bin Laden and Al-Qaeda could have
carried out the 9-11 attacks without U.S. foreknowledge:

bin Laden has been under surveillance for
years: every telephone call was monitored and al-Qaeda has been penetrated by American
intelligence, Pakistani intelligence, Saudi intelligence, Egyptian
intelligence. They could not have kept secret an operation that required such a
degree of organization and sophistication.

The truth
is that if—as the evidence suggests—alleged 9-11 mastermind Osama bin Laden had
access to the Inslaw computer company’s PROMIS surveillance software and used
it to carry off the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, this means without any
question that Israel’s Mossad, knew all along what bin Laden and/or his
lieutenants had in mind.

To
understand all of what we are about to outline, a brief digression into the
history of Inslaw and the PROMIS software is critical, for the truth is that
the fine hand of Israeli intelligence and its influence at the highest levels
in Washington is the common thread running through the web of the INSLAW affair
and it ultimately linked directly to 9-11.

It all
began in March 1982 when Bill and Nancy Hamilton of Inslaw won a $10 million
three-year contract with the Justice Department, which planned to install the
PROMIS software, developed by Mr. Hamilton, in the 22 largest U.S. attorneys’
offices and a word-processor version in 72 others.

In the
meantime, however, Dr. Earl Brian, a longtime crony of then-Attorney General
Edwin Meese, began using his political clout to interfere with the Hamiltons’
contract in order to win the contract for a company he owned (after the
Hamiltons refused Brian’s offer to purchase Inslaw). Brian, with wide-ranging
international contacts, was widely believed to be a longtime CIA asset.

In early
1983 the Justice Department arranged with the Hamiltons to demonstrate PROMIS
to an Israeli who called himself “Dr. Ben Orr” and who purported to be
representing the Israeli ministry of
Justice. “Ben Orr” said he was most impressed with PROMIS, but, to the Hamiltons’
surprise, he never bought the product.

It was only
later the Hamiltons learned why: Using his contacts inside the Justice
Department, Brian had illicitly provided the software to LEKEM, a top-secret
signals intelligence unit of the Israeli Defense Force. The head of LEKEM was
longtime Mossad operative Rafael Eitan who was actually the “Dr. Ben Orr” who
had visited the Hamiltons.

It was
later revealed that Eitan was also the Mossad official directing the American
spying operations of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard. In fact, Eitan’s LEKEM operations
had been covertly funded by a series of off-shore corporations in the Bahamas
that had been set in place some years before by the law firm of Burns and
Summit.

This just
happened to be the firm of Deputy Attorney General Arnold Burns, the key player
in the campaign to dislodge Federal Bankruptcy Judge Bason who had ruled
against the Justice Department after the Hamiltons had brought suit against the
department for its misappropriation of the PROMIS software—a long and tangled
tale in and of itself, far too complicated to delve into in these pages.

A powerful
attorney with long-standing ties to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai
B’rith, Burns was also a founder of “Nesher,” a quietly influential group of
some 300 high-ranking federal officials and bureaucrats who were, at that time
(and probably still today) meeting regularly, bound together by a desire to
advance Israel’s cause.

Israeli
intelligence operative Ari Ben-Menashe has said that PROMIS was perfect
software for use by Israeli intelligence in tracking the Palestinian and
political dissidents critical of Israel. He said: “PROMIS was . . . probably
the most important issue of the 1980s because it just changed the whole
intelligence outlook.”

In fact, it
appears that Brian also sold PROMIS to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the
Canadian Security and Intelligence Service and to Jordanian military
intelligence, among many others. So, in truth, the full extent of Brian’s
intrigue in dealing PROMIS worldwide has yet to be told—but the Israeli
connection has always been the key to understanding the intrigue surrounding
the Inslaw affair from the beginning.

It was only
in 2003—well after the 9-11 attacks—that Bill Hamilton, the founder of Inslaw,
came forth, calling for the new “independent” commission investigating 9-11 to
look into evidence that bin Laden may have gained access to PROMIS. Hamilton
said, in pertinent part:

bin Laden reportedly bought the U.S.
intelligence community’s version of the PROMIS database software on the Russian
black market, after former FBI Agent Robert P. Hanssen had stolen it for the
Russians, and used PROMIS in computer-based espionage against the United
States.

The national commission may wish to examine
whether the Justice Department’s misappropriation of PROMIS was, at a minimum,
linked indirectly to pre-September 11 performance problems of U.S.
intelligence.

Hamilton
noted that although the FBI and other federal agencies had initially denied
they had used the PROMIS software, he pointed out that on Oct. 16, 2001 the
FBI, for example, admitted that it had, in fact, used PROMIS to track
classified information in federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies,
despite the legal controversy surrounding the misappropriation of the software.
(Of course, however, the FBI continued to deny any wrongdoing in the Inslaw
affair.)

In any
case, taking Hamilton’s basic allegations on their face, anyone with knowledge
of the history of the theft of PROMIS or of the so-called “Russian black
market” cannot help but recognize the obvious: Israel’s central positioning in
the Inslaw affair throughout its sordid history.

Here is the
key to understanding how Israel could have been—and most assuredly was—tracking
bin Laden:

In
reporting Hamilton’s allegations, The Washington
Times pointed out that by having control of PROMIS, bin Laden would not
only be able to monitor U.S. efforts to track him, but that it would also have
given bin Laden access to the computer databases of other nations’ intelligence
services and financial institutions, what the Times did not mention is that—because of a “trapdoor” installed in
PROMIS —anyone using the software (including bin Laden) would have likewise had
their own activities monitored by those from whom the software had been
received.

The fact
this “trapdoor” existed was first documented nationally by The Spotlight and later in American
Free Press, based on Tom Valentine’s pioneering Inslaw coverage on his
Radio Free America.

In the
meantime, in his book, Seeds of Fire,
British journalist Gordon Thomas filled in many missing pieces of the puzzle,
in particular the central role of British-based press lord, Robert Maxwell—a
longtime Mossad asset—in marketing the PROMIS software around the world.

Then, in a
follow-up book on Maxwell, entitled Israel’s
Superspy: The Life and Murder of a Media Mogul, Thomas and his co-author, Martin
Dillon, provided further devastating details, including revelations concerning
Maxwell’s intrigue with the very “Russian” criminals now implicated in the
distribution of PROMIS to bin Laden. And make no mistake about it: the
“Russian” connection points directly to Israel.

Although
the term “Russian black market” raises the specter of “the Russian Mafia” and
“Russian organized crime,” the fact is that the so-called “Russians” in this
network are largely not of Russian ethnic origin (they are Jews) and many
indeed have dual Russian-Israeli citizenship.

In fact,
according to the late Robert I. Friedman, writing in his book Red Mafiya, one of the leading figures
in the syndicate, Shabtai Kalmanovitch, was also an operative for Israel’s
Mossad.

In
addition, Friedman pointed out, other figures in the “Russian” syndicate, such
as Joseph Kobson, have close political ties with (indeed strong influence over)
the “right wing” Likud political bloc in Israel. And Likud—of course—is the
political party of former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon who was in power
at the time of the 9-11 attacks.

With two decades of unimpeded growth, the
Russian Mafiya has succeeded in turning Israel into its very own, “mini-state,”
in which it operates with virtual impunity.

Although many in international law enforcement
believe that Israel is by now so compromised that its future as a nation is
imperiled, its government, inexplicably, has done almost nothing to combat the
problem.

Friedman
pointed out that U.S. law enforcement—including the FBI—actually did little to
impede the growth of the “Russian” crime syndicate while it was establishing
itself on American soil. The reason he said: “A large part of the problem was
political: the Russian mob was predominantly Jewish.” Friedman revealed that as
far back as 1992, an FBI spokesman, Joe Valiquette admitted that “The Russian
Mafia has the lowest priority on the criminal pecking order.” Concurrently,
Patrick Cotter, one of the Justice Department prosecutors who nailed famed
Italian-American crime figure John Gotti, frankly admitted to Friedman that “if
we don’t begin to address the problem now, we’ll be running around asking
ourselves how the Hell this Russian organized crime got so big and how we can
get rid of them.”

Cotter
noted that while the FBI had squads targeting the declining Italian-American
“crime families” there was no squad targeting the “Russian” crime figures. “There
is your problem,” he said.

Why the FBI
never moved against these mobsters is no mystery to anyone familiar with the
history of the FBI. As many have long been aware, the top leadership of the
FBI—since well before World War II—actively collaborated quite closely with the
Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai B’rith in “dirty tricks” operations
against American nationalists.

In 1948,
after the founding of the state of Israel, the ADL then began acting as an
adjunct and asset-in-place of Israel’s Mossad.

The late
former U.S. Attorney General Elliot Richardson, while serving as attorney for
Inslaw’s owners, discovered that it was specifically the Office of Special
Investigations (OSI)—the so-called “nazi hunting division” of the Justice
Department—that was responsible for the theft of the PROMIS software.
Richardson also charged that the OSI operated a secret covert-operations
intelligence unit inside the Justice Department, involved in assassinations and
other operations designed to silence American political dissidents.

Since it is
no secret that the OSI also worked closely with the Mossad, it is accurate to
say that the OSI (and the secret unit inside OSI) were acting as Mossad assets.
All of this happened under the very eyes of the FBI’s inspector general and
others responsible for protecting American national security.

This is
particularly relevant inasmuch as at the time the Inslaw scandal was coming
into the open, The Spotlight
newspaper led the media in publicizing the affair. A Justice Department
attorney later promoted to a federal judgeship in return for his services on
behalf of the Mossad-linked OSI thieves—S. Martin Teel—later issued the
controversial court ruling that destroyed The
Spotlight.

The story
of Inslaw is told in further detail in this author’s previous work, The New
Jerusalem.

Putting two
and two together in the intertwined cases of Inslaw and 9-11 does certainly
point toward a central Israeli connection, but we certainly didn’t hear about
any of that in the American media. And the “independent” commission appointed
by President George W. Bush to “investigate” 9-11 didn’t delve into it either.

And at this
juncture it’s probably worth pointing out that, early on, in the formative
stages of the dubious “investigation” into 9-11 by United States government
personnel, Israeli intrigues designed to direct (or, mis-direct) the course of
the investigation were readily apparent but carefully suppressed by the media—with
the notable exception of a report appearing in the May 20, 2002 issue of American Free Press.

In question
was the sudden resignation by L. Britt Snider as staff director of the joint
House and Senate intelligence committee investigation of the 9-11 attacks.

What makes
the little-noticed Snider affair quite interesting is that only a month before
his resignation, Snider’s work was being praised by Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.)
and Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.), the chairmen, respectively, of the Senate and
House intelligence committees.

For its own
part, even The Washington Post
admitted on April 30, 2002 Snider’s departure was “setting back the inquiry
into the intelligence community’s failure to detect or prevent the worst
terrorist operation in U.S. history.”

While the
major media dismissed Snider’s resignation as a “personal matter”—possibly
involving “a second individual”—AFP explored the matter more carefully and, considering
the background to the affair, concluded that Snider had actually been forced
out, that there was intrigue afoot behind the scenes designed to dislodge him
and that the “personal matter” had been utilized to accomplish that end.

The truth
is the beginning, the primary opposition to Snider’s tenure at the
congressional 9-11 inquiry came from the Israeli lobby.

At the time
Snider was appointed, one of the Israeli lobby’s chief Washington voices, Frank
Gaffney Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy (CSP), bitterly
attacked Snider.

A
functionary for the CSP’s founder, Israeli lobby kingpin William Kristol, a
leading American advocate for the hard-line policies of the Sharon and
Netanyahu factions in Israel, Gaffney—himself once described as being
associated with “extreme right-wing Israeli causes”—asserted that Snider’s
appointment “sets the stage for a whitewash of epic proportions” and charged
Snider’s close professional relationship with CIA Director George Tenet was a
conflict of interest.

Sen.
Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), another of Israel’s stalwart allies, was also a vocal
Tenet critic and may have played a part in the intrigue that resulted in the
departure of Tenet’s ally, Snider, from his post. Shelby joined the chorus
attempting to place the blame for the oft-discussed “intelligence breakdown” on
the CIA, lending credence to the idea that the CIA had failed to carefully
track Osama bin Laden and therefore allowed “Islamic fundamentalists” to
orchestrate 9-11.

Why such
concern about Tenet from the advocates of Israel? It may have something to do
with the fact that the Israeli lobby had long been hostile to Tenet.

The late
international correspondent Andrew St. George pointed out in The Spotlight that the Israeli lobby had
always adjudged Tenet to be part of a forceful element inside the American
military, intelligence and diplomatic communities that remained suspicious of
Israel despite Israel’s otherwise heavy-handed influence among “bought and paid
for” politicians on Capitol Hill.

And
contrary to a popular myth which reigns today on the Internet, Tenet is not Jewish.
He is actually of Greek Orthodox Christian extraction. Here, in fact, is where
the myth of Tenet being Jewish originated:

On November
19, 1995, a Parade magazine cover photo of Tenet—along with two of his
colleagues at the CIA who were Jewish, Director John Deutch and Executive
Director Nora Slatkin—was wrongly misidentified by Parade as another of his CIA
colleagues, David Cohen another Jew who was mentioned in Parade’s story about “the
New CIA.”

As a
consequence of that error, many people to this day believe Tenet is Jewish and
that he is therefore enamored with Israel. And although Parade corrected its
error in its subsequent weekly edition, that correction went largely unnoticed.

In any
case, it’s very clear that Israel’s partisans were determined to have a lock
onto any and all inquiries into the origins of 9-11. And likewise, in the
period that followed, any allegations of Israeli involvement were met with
howls of denial in the Controlled Media.

However, as
we proceed, we will find (again and again) that there is good solid information
that not only demonstrates that Israel was indeed the prime mover behind 9-11
and that, when all is said and done, we will have a reasonable and likely
scenario (based on a wide-ranging array of information coming from notably
disparate sources) that proves that controversial contention.

CHAPTER TWENTY-TWO:

A “September Surprise”
for George W. Bush?

Although
it’s become an article of faith among 9-11 dissidents that then-President
George W. Bush simply had to have had foreknowledge of the impending 9-11
attacks, that thesis—as exciting though it may be—doesn’t take into
consideration a number of nuances that, quite the contrary, might suggest that
Bush was as taken by surprise by the horrific events as the rest of the
American people.

An
interesting counter-perspective in this regard came shortly after the 9-11
attacks from General Hameed Gul, the still highly influential former director
general of the Pakistani intelligence services, when he—Gul—gave a fascinating
interview to Arnaud de Borchgrave, UPI’s international editor at large,
providing perceptive insights into 9-11 that could only come from someone with
his contacts and “insider” knowledge of global affairs.

Having
worked closely for many years with the CIA in the American agency’s efforts to
drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan—the movement that launched Osama bin Laden
in the first place—Gul was no peripheral minor player easily dismissed. What
Gul said about Sept.11 deserves consideration.

Gul did not
believe Osama bin Laden (whom he knew) was responsible, but he did say that if
there was genuine evidence implicating bin Laden, that such evidence should be
brought forth. Gul noted the media’s role in hyping the widespread theory
implicating bin Laden:

Within 10 minutes of the second twin tower
being hit in The World Trade Center, CNN said Osama bin Laden had done it. That
was a planned piece of disinformation by the real perpetrators. It created an
instant mindset and put public opinion into a trance, which prevented even
intelligent people from thinking for themselves.

In Gul’s
judgment, while bin Laden was now actually revered by many in the Muslim world,
the Saudi millionaire was a spiritual leader—not a military commander or
tactician. Bin Laden, said Gul, simply “doesn’t have the means for such a
sophisticated operation” of the type that took place on Sept. 11.

If bin
Laden was not responsible for what happened on Sept. 11, then who was
responsible?

Gul
believed that Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, orchestrated the
attacks of Sept. 11 and that the Mossad carried off the operation with the
support of a cadre of its own assets—traitors to America—inside the U.S.
defense establishment (probably in the U.S. Air Force, in particular). Here is exactly
what Gul said:

Mossad and its American associates are the
obvious culprits.

Who benefits from the crime?

The attacks against the twin towers started at
8:45 am and four flights are diverted from their assigned air space and no air traffic
controller sounds the alarm. And no Air Force jets scramble until 10 am.

That also smacks of a small scale Air Force
rebellion, a coup against the Pentagon perhaps? Radars are jammed, transponders
fail. No IFF [identification of friend or foe] challenge.

In Pakistan, if there is no response to IFF,
jets are instantly scrambled and the aircraft is shot down with no further
questions asked.

This was clearly an inside job. Bush was afraid
and rushed to the shelter of a nuclear bunker. He clearly feared a nuclear situation.
Who could that have been?

Will that also be hushed up in the
investigation, like the Warren report after the Kennedy assassination?

Why was
Bush a target?

Gul
asserted that Israel and its American lobby hated both former President Bush
and current President George W. Bush, because the father and son are considered
“too close to oil interests and the [Arab] Gulf countries.”

At this
juncture, let us stop for a moment.

Today years
later, in distant retrospect, Gul’s comments might sound a bit of a stretch,
considering the ardent pro-Israel stance of George W. Bush and the manipulation
of his administration by the Zionist neo-conservative element, bear in mind
that at the time Gul was making these assertions the younger Bush had, in fact,
been under fire from some hard-line pro-Israel elements who had been feverishly
asserting that his administration had not been pro-Israel enough.

Even
fanatically religious pro-Israel zealot, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) had risen
to the floor of the Senate on March 4, 2002, to declare that God allowed
terrorists to attack the United States on Sept. 11 to punish America for being
too tough on Israel.

In a speech
condemning his fellow Republican, President Bush, who then was perceived to be
pressing too hard on Israel, Inhofe stated in no uncertain terms:

One of the reasons I believe the spiritual door
was opened for an attack against the United States of America is that the
policy of our government has been to ask the Israelis, and demand it with
pressure, not to retaliate in a significant way against the terrorist strikes
that have been launched against them.

Although
American broadcast media had previously attacked speakers from the Muslim world
who had suggested, in one fashion or another, that the Sept. 11 attack on the
United States was the will of God, there was hardly a mention anywhere of
Inhofe’s inflammatory remarks.

It
certainly did not receive the attention it should have.

In any
case, as a consequence, George W. Bush was considered by Israel, in Gul’s
words, “a potential danger to Israel.” Gul opinioned that the Israelis “made
sure Bush senior didn’t get a second term. His land-for-peace pressure in
Palestine didn’t suit Israel.”

Gul
contends Israel’s suspicions about the younger Bush were further exacerbated by
the fact, he said, that Arab sources (through American conduits) funnelled some
$150 million into Bush’s 2000 presidential campaign, arranged by former
President Bush and former Secretary of State Jim Baker.

In
addition, according to Gul, former President Bush and Baker, as private
citizens, arranged the new strategic relationship between Saudi Arabia and
Iran. “I have this from sources in both countries,” stated the former Pakistani
intelligence chief.

“Jews were
stunned by the way Bush stole the election in Florida.

They had
put big money on Al Gore,” said Gul, who evidently believed that President
Bush, rather than take on the Mossad on Sept. 11, decided to turn the tables on
his Israeli enemies and make the best of a bad situation. (In other words, Bush
was turning a lemon into lemonade or making a silk purse out of a sow's ear, as
they say). Gul added this:

Israel has now handed the Bush family the
opportunity it has been waiting for to consolidate America’s imperial grip on the
Gulf and acquire control of the Caspian basis by extending its military
presence in Central Asia.

Bush conveniently overlooks—or is not told—the
fact that Islamic fundamentalists got their big boost in the modern age as CIA
assets in the covert campaign I was also involved with to force the Soviets out
of Afghanistan.

All summer long we heard about America’s
shrinking surplus and that the Pentagon would not have sufficient funds to modernize
for the 21st century. And now, all of a sudden, the Pentagon can get what it
wants without any Democratic Party opposition. How very convenient.

Even [America’s] cherished civil liberties can
now be abridged with impunity to protect the expansion of the hegemony of
transnational capitalism. There is now a new excuse to crush anti-globalization
protests.

“Bush 43” [George W. Bush] follows “Bush 41”
[Bush’s father]: Iraq was baited into the Kuwaiti trap when the U.S. told Saddam
it was not interested in his inter-Arab squabbles. Two days later, he moved
into Kuwait, which was an Iraqi province anyway before the British Empire
decreed otherwise.

Roosevelt baited the Pearl Harbor trap for the
Japanese empire, which provided the pretest for entering World War II.

And now the Israelis have given the U.S. the
pretext for further expansion into an area that will be critical in the next 25
years—the Caspian basin.

Gul
acknowledged his own hostility to former President George H. W. Bush, pointing
out that when Bush became president he issued an order to “clip the wings” of
Pakistani intelligence (of which Gul was then director general) which had been
coordinating the entire anti-Soviet effort in Afghanistan. Gul also said that
he was blocked for promotion because of pressure by the U.S. Until then, he
says, “We were all pro-American. But then America left us in the lurch and
everything went to pieces, including Afghanistan.”

According
to Gul, it was U.S. policy, after the collapse of the Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan, that led to the rise of the Taliban which was then being targeted
for destruction by the “Dubya” Bush administration:

The U.S. pushed for a broad-based Afghan
government of seven factions and then waved goodbye. Even in the best of democracies,
a broad-based coalition does not work. So we quickly had seven jokers in Kabul
interested only in one thing, jockeying for power. The gunplay quickly
followed, which led to the creation of Taliban, the students of the original Mujahideen,
who decided to put an end to it.

Gul was
critical of influential geopolitical strategists such as Samuel Huntington who,
in his widely-touted anti-Muslim screed, The Clash of Civilizations, “puts
Confucius and Judeo-Christians in one corner, and us [Muslims] in the other.” This,
Gul said, “is the diabolical school that wants to launch an anti-Muslim ‘crusade.’
”

Instead,
according to Gul:

We need a meeting—not a clash—of civilizations.
We are on the brink of disaster. It is time to pull back from the brink and
reassess before we blow ourselves up. The purpose of Islam is service to
humanity. The time for-like-minded people to have a meeting of the minds is
now.

When Gul
asserted his informed opinion that President Bush himself believed at one point
on Sept. 11 that traitors, perhaps within the Air Force, had played a part in
the hijackings and suggested that these traitors were part of a more
wide-ranging attempt at a coup d’état orchestrated by Bush-hating partisans of
Israel, critics dismissed Gul as a Muslim sympathizer of Osama bin Laden,
failing to point out Gul’s actual comments presented Bush himself as an
effective victim (or potential actual physical victim) of the events of 9-11.

However, in
its Dec. 31/Jan. 7, 2002 issue, Newsweek revealed that on Sept. 11, a military
officer in the White House communications room announced a threat had been
received against the president’s plane, Air Force One. When the top aide to the
vice president’s chief of staff asked, “How do we know?,” according to
Newsweek, the officer replied that the warning included the aircraft’s code
name, which is classified.

According to
Newsweek, “The threat was almost surely bogus—though to this day White House
officials say they do not know where it came from.” Newsweek quoted White House
National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice as saying, “I don’t think we’ll ever
know,” where the threat came from.

Newsweek
also reported there was also another report from the Federal Aviation
Administration of another plane—about 30 seconds away—heading straight for Washington.
Yet, said Newsweek: “The plane was a phantom of the fog of war; it never existed.”
Or did it?

Again,
these are the kind of questions that have been raised about what did—and
didn’t—happen on 9-11. And many of them, while, quite naturally, are simply the
result of bad “on-the-spot” reporting, a phenomenon that always plagues broad-ranging
events of this kind, the complete record of 9-11 demonstrates that, in fact,
the record is actually hardly complete at all and that, as American Free Press
asserted time and time again, there were just too many “unanswered questions.”

However, the
thesis put forth by General Gul—although widely suppressed or otherwise
ignored—does tend to point toward the very likelihood that, contrary to what
many 9-11“truthers” want to think, it is not beyond the realm of possibility
that on 9-11 George W. Bush was just as taken by surprise by what happened and
that, as Gul suggested, Bush himself may well have been one of the targets for
elimination that day.

And at this
juncture, it’s probably worth noting my own personal discussion regarding 9-11
with one of the highest-ranking figures in the Arab world, a conversation which
took place during my visit, in March of 2003, to Abu Dhabi in the United Arab
Emirates where I had been invited to lecture at the Zayed Centre for
Coordination and Follow-Up, at the time the officially-designated think tank of
the Arab League.

I spent
some four hours alone with Sheik Sultan, the chairman of the Zayed Centre, at
his remarkable palace in Abu Dhabi. The London-educated prince, the second son
of then-ruling Sheik Zayed and also the deputy prime minister, described his
“shock” at how, in the post-9-11 era, the United States, in his view, had begun
acting as an imperial power as the American media and U.S. government
policy-makers were now promoting a “clash of civilizations” (a theme, by the
way, first enunciated by a longtime Zionist theoretician, Bernard Lewis).

Following
the Cold War, the sheik said, he believed that there was arising a genuine
opportunity for world cooperation and that the United States would play a
front-line role therein. Instead, in the wake of 9-11, the Arab and Muslim
world had now become the new “enemy”—a new foundation, a new excuse, for U.S. military
adventurism abroad. Of 9-11 specifically, Sheik Sultan said: “The crime of
September 11 could not have come about without the support of a state
apparatus.

The
militant training camps of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda simply did not have the
capacity to carry off a crime of this magnitude.” The implication, of course, was
that the 9-11 terrorists were assisted by others.

The sheik
pointed out, quite notably, that he had been a student in London at the time of
many Irish Republican Army attacks on British installations and noted that,
based on his own considerable knowledge of bin Laden and the vaunted Al-Qaeda network,
that Al-Qaeda’s capacities were essentially at the same relatively basic level
of that of the IRA and quite simply not capable of having carried off the 9-11
attacks.

Sheik
Sultan referenced the similarity between the actual consequence of the 9-11
attacks and what had been the intended consequence of Israel’s attack on the
U.S.S. Liberty wherein the American ship was deliberately attacked in the
Mediterranean by the Israelis on June 7, 1967, with the deaths of 34 Americans
and the wounding of 172 others.

“We all
remember the Liberty,” said the sheik, pointing out that if the Liberty had
been sunk with the loss of all aboard, as the Israelis certainly intended, this
attack—a classic false flag—would have been (and almost was) blamed on Egypt
and served as the provocation for a U.S. attack on Egypt and the Arab states.

Only the
dedicated efforts by the wounded men on the Liberty’s crew saved the ship. And
only at the last minute did the United States discover that Israel was the
guilty party—just as an American nuclear attack on Cairo was about to be set in
motion.

The
shocking details surrounding this Israeli false flag have been unveiled in
Peter Hounam’s remarkable book, Operation
Cyanide. And it is of more than passing interest to note—in light of what
we have already explored in these pages about the JFK assassination—that it was,
according to Hounam’s findings, Israel’s man in place at the CIA, James J. Angleton,
who played a pivotal role in setting up the Liberty for the intended “false
flag” attack by his friends in Israel.

But Sheik
Sultan was hardly alone in thinking that there was much more to the 9-11
attacks.

During my
presentation at the Zayed Centre itself, I had been asked directly as to
whether I viewed bin Laden as a tool of the CIA, a view that, in fact, was
quite common in the Arab world, a point that may surprise many in the West. Many
Arab diplomats, journalists and others with whom I spoke expressed the
suspicion that if, in fact, bin Laden had played some part in orchestrating 9-11
that he had done so acting at the direction of the CIA and/or the Mossad.

Noting that
this was, as I said, a “very complex” question, I pointed out that whether bin
Laden was a knowing or un-knowing tool of the CIA and the Mossad, the fact
remained that U.S. policy toward the Arab and Muslim worlds would have
ultimately caused the creation of a bin Laden-type character even if bin Laden
himself had never existed.

For his own
part, the aforementioned Sheik Sultan pointed out to me, quite notably, that:

Here in the Middle East, we never knew bin
Laden until after Sept. 11. We only heard of him, and he only gained great recognition,
as a result of the publicity he received in the American media.

The sheik
was not suggesting, of course, that neither he nor other Arab leaders (or the
broader “Arab street”) had never heard of bin Laden.

What he was
saying that that—prior to the mass media’s focus on bin Laden after 9-11—bin
Laden had never been of any substantial political consequence, that he was a
virtual unknown with no significant following.

Until that
time, most people in what the media now commonly refer to as “the Arab street”
had never even heard of Bin Laden.

It was the
Jewish-controlled media that made bin Laden a virtual overnight international
celebrity who gained what popularity he did achieve precisely because bin
Laden—having been accused of responsibility for 9-11—was seen as a
counterbalance to the power of Israel and not—as the average American might
think—because bin Laden’s Islamic fundamentalism holds such a spell over the
Muslim world.

A secondary
consequence of all of this, likewise, was that the media’s focus on bin Laden
led many Americans to believe bin Laden was—and had been—a major player in the
Arab and Muslim world when, in fact, he had not been. And this, of course,
played right into the hands of the Israeli intriguers and their collaborators
on American soil who hoped to stoke up American support for Israel and
opposition to Israel’s perceived enemies in the Arab world.

The truth
is, of course, that bin Laden was as certainly hostile to the ruling regimes in
Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Libya—and even Iraq—along with
the other Arab states as he was to the United States. Despite that, thanks to
the Jewish-controlled media, Americans wrongly perceived bin Laden to represent
the attitude of the entire Arab world toward the United States and the West.

With that
in mind, Arab leaders know full well that it has been a long-standing policy on
the part of Israel to keep the Arab world destabilized—“Balkanized”—to put a
European twist on the concept.

Thus, bin
Laden and his Al-Qaeda operations played a major part in fulfilling that
geopolitical aim on the part of Israel and its American allies. By keeping the
Arab states off balance, this has provided Israel the opportunity to continue
to expand its influence, if not its very borders.

So the
“idea” of Osama bin Laden—as opposed to the “reality”—has been a useful tool
for those who did orchestrate 9-11, especially since it is abundantly clear
that Osama bin Laden did not.

In fact, in
this realm, it is fitting to conclude with the remarkable assessment of 9-11
put forth in 2006 by former high-ranking Russian military figure General Leonid
Ivashov.

Then the
vice-president of the Russian Academy on Geopolitical Affairs, Ivashov had
previously served as the chief of the department for general affairs in the
Soviet Union’s ministry of defense, secretary of the council of defense
ministers of the Community of Independent states (CIS), chief of the military
cooperation department at the Russian federation’s ministry of defense and—most
notably, on 9-11 itself—the chief of staff of the Russian armed forces.

Here is
what Ivashov wrote:

1. The organizers of [the 9-11] attacks were
the political and business circles interested in destabilizing the world order and
who had the means necessary to finance the operation.

The political conception of this action matured
in the face of emerging tensions in the administration of financial and other types of
resources.

We have to look for the reasons of the attacks
in the coincidence of interests of Big Capital at global and transnational levels,
in the circles that were not satisfied with the rhythm of the globalization
process or its direction.

Unlike traditional wars, whose conception is
determined by generals and politicians, the oligarchs and politicians were the
ones who did it this time.

2. Only secret services and their current
chiefs, or those retired but still with influence inside the state organizations,
have the ability to plan, organize and conduct an operation of such magnitude.

Without the support of secret services, these
organizations cannot exist, let alone carry out operations of such magnitude inside
countries so well protected. Planning and carrying out an operation on this
scale is extremely complex.

3. Osama bin Laden and “Al-Qaeda” cannot be the
organizers nor the performers of the September 11 attacks. They do not have the
necessary organization, resources or leaders. Thus, a team of professionals had
to be created, and the Arab kamikazes are just extras to mask the operation.

Ivashov
concluded: “The September 11 operation modified the course of events in the
world in the direction chosen by transnational mafias and international
oligarchs; that is, those who hope to control the planet’s natural resources,
the world information network and financial flows. This operation also favored
the US economic and political elite that also seeks world dominance.”

Although
Ivashov did not use the word “Mossad,” of course, his assessment 1) most
definitely runs contrary to the “official” version of what happened on 9-11; 2)
incorporates much of the thinking about 9-11 that we have seen in the comments
of the aforementioned General Gul of Pakistan and of Sheik Zayed of Abu Dhabi;
and 3) does indeed point toward the Mossad—in its role as a key force in the
arsenal of the “transnational mafias and international oligarchs”—as a key
player behind the terror that rained (and reigned) upon America on 9-11.

Let us now
move forward and examine precisely the means by which the Mossad’s historic
template for terror was utilized on 9-11.

CHAPTER TWENTY-THREE:

Pondering the
Unthinkable:

Were Those Hijackers
Really Arabs

or Were They Really
Israeli “Mista’Arvim”?

On Dec. 24,
2001, writing in American Free Press,
I put forth an alternative theory relating to 9-11 that—in the end—resulted in
some international political reverberations. Right up front, in my article for AFP,
I asked these provocative questions: Were those hijackers really Arabs? Would
Israeli agents carry out a suicide mission that could cost American Jewish
lives? My article challenged readers of AFP to consider some little-known
facts:

In 1986 the
New York-based leader of the terrorist Jewish Defense League, Victor Vancier,
gave a prophetic hint of what may have been finally played out on Sept. 11,
2001:

If you think the Shiites in Lebanon are capable
of fantastic acts of suicidal terrorism, the Jewish underground will strike targets
that will make Americans gasp: “How could Jews do such things?”

According
to Vancier—quoted by Robert I. Friedman in The
Village Voice on May 6, 1986—his allies were “desperate people” who “don’t care
if they live or die.”

Considering
this warning it is entirely conceivable the “Middle Eastern” men purportedly
described by the ill-fated passengers on the 9-11 airliners were not Arabs at
all.

In fact,
these hijackers could well have been Israeli-sponsored fundamentalist Jewish
fanatics (posing as “bin Laden Arabs”) hoping to instigate an all-out war U.S. war
against the Arab world.

“Jewish
suicide bombers? Impossible!” the critics cried.

However,
the fact is that there has been a “suicide tradition” that is much-revered part
of Jewish history—going back to the famous mass suicide at Masada (however
apocryphal) by Jewish zealots.

But in
modern times, Israeli suicide missions have indeed been undertaken by officers
of Israeli intelligence.

In The
Other Side of Deception former Mossad officer Victor Ostrovsky described one
1989 venture: the participants were “all volunteers” advised that there was
effectively “no possibility of rescue should they be caught.” And that is a
suicide mission, by any definition.

What about
the Arabic language heard on one airplane’s black box? Some naive critics of my
thesis immediately pointed out that the hijackers spoke Arabic, proving they
were Arabs, not nice Jewish boys on a highly-unlikely suicide mission on behalf
of Israel’s survival.

However,
those critics failed to consider a formerly secret CIA assessment, Israel:
Foreign Intelligence and Security Services, dated March 1979, which reported
that it had been a long-standing policy for Israeli intelligence to disguise
Jews as Arabs:

One of the established goals of the
intelligence and security services is that each officer be fluent in Arabic.

As further training, these Mossad officers work
in the [Israeli-controlled Arab lands] for two years to sharpen their language skills.
. . .

Many Israelis have come from Arab countries
where they were born and educated and appear more Arab than Israeli . . .

By forging passports and identity documents of
Arab and western countries and providing sound background legends and cover,
Mossad has successfully sent into Egypt and other Arab countries Israelis
disguised and documented as Arabs or citizens of European countries. . . .

These persons are also useful for their ability
to pass completely for a citizen of the nation in question.

The Israeli talent for counterfeiting or
forging foreign passports and documents ably supports the agent’s authenticity.

And note
this: Famed Pulitzer Prize-winner Jack Anderson—a vocal supporter of Israel and
by no means an anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist—wrote in his syndicated column
on Sept. 17, 1972 that:

Israeli agents—immigrants whose families had
lived in Arab lands for generations—have a perfect knowledge of Arab dialects
and customs. They have been able to infiltrate Arab governments with ease.

Shin Bet agents, who worked undercover in the
Israeli-Arab sector in the 1950s, went as far as to marry Muslim women and have
children with them, in an attempt to continue their mission without raising
suspicion.

Melman and
his co-author, Dan Raviv, writing in their book, Spies Against Armageddon: Inside Israel’s Secret Wars, described
this Shin Bet mission in detail:

In 1952, Shin Bet formed a highly secret unit
of young Jews who were trained to behave as Arabs and live in Arab towns and neighborhoods
in Israel.

They were given fake identities and planted in
such places as Nazareth and Jaffa to be the eyes and ears of the Shin Bet.

Their bosses called them “mista’arvim,” coining
a new word by combining mistavim (Hebrew for “masqueraders”) and Aravim (the
word for “Arabs”).

One of the main goals was to have trusted
Israelis on the inside, in case a war were to break out and Israeli Arabs were
to join the enemy.

Shmuel “Sami” Moriah, a senior Shin Bet officer
who came to Israel from Iraq and had plenty of experience smuggling Jews out of
his native country, led the unit. He recruited 10 other Iraqi-born men for this
highly demanding mission.

With detailed cover stories about returning to
Palestine after fleeing abroad in the 1948 war, they were sent into Arab villages
and cities. Their genuine parents, siblings, and friends in Israel were kept in
the dark about their whereabouts and activities.

These Shin Bet agents became so integrated in
community life that it was fully expected by neighbors and village elders that
they would get married—and most of them did.

Moriah said that he left the decision to each
man, but “it seemed suspicious that young vigorous men would stay alone, without
a spouse. When we sent them on the mission we didn’t order them to marry, but
it was clear to both sides that there is such an expectation, and that it would
help the job they were doing.”

The elders introduced them to eligible young Arab
women.

They had the brief courtship typical in conservative
Arab societies.

And most of the 10 men married, not ever
telling their wives that they were Jewish Israelis.

As time passed, the intelligence from this
daring deception proved to be almost worthless. Shin Bet wanted to call off the
mission. But now Shin Bet had a tough problem.

“The double life they were living cost them a
lot, emotionally,” said [Shin Bet Director Amos] Manor, who created this
project but then backed away after seven years. “I saw that the price is not
worth it and decided to put an end to it.”

The unit was disbanded by 1959, but the
ramifications haunted Shin bet for years. The Muslim wives were informed that
their husbands were actually Jewish—and, perhaps even worse, government
agents—and then the women were given a choice of being sent to an Arab country,
to avoid any local retaliation, or being resettled with their husbands in
Jewish communities in Israel.

Almost all chose to stay with their husbands,
even in the very changed circumstances. Some of the wives needed and got psychological
counseling.

So the idea
that latter-day Israeli “mista’arvim” (also sometimes rendered as
“mista-aravim”) may have been utilized in the 9-11 hijackings and the related
intrigues surrounding the 9-11 tragedy has some very real foundation, no matter
what the critics might otherwise contend.

In fact,
serious questions have been raised about the identities of the Sept. 11 “Arab
hijackers.”

While the
media reported the ringleader’s passport conveniently landed atop rubble eight
blocks from “Ground Zero,” The Orlando Sentinel also reported that at least
four men identified as hijackers were not dead and had nothing to do with the
attacks—that others unknown had stolen the identities of those individuals and
used those identities during the 9-11 attacks.

And the
fact remains that, to this day, there is really no firm evidence of precisely
who the individuals were who were aboard (or purported to be aboard) the 9-11
airliners that day. We really don’t know if they were Arabs or even if they
were the specific Arabs that they were said to be. Nor can it be discounted, as
we’ve suggested, that at least some of them could have been Jewish assets of
the Mossad, posing as Arabs.

But it gets
even murkier. In The New Yorker on
Oct. 8, 2001 Pulitzer Prize winner Seymour Hersh pointed out:

Many of the investigators believe that some of
the initial clues about the terrorists’ identities and preparations, such as flight
manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told
me, “Whatever trail was left was left deliberately—for the FBI to chase.”

Why Arabs
would plant evidence implicating their own is an interesting point the
mainstream media chose not to address.

Nor has the
media ever identified to a grateful nation the unnamed citizen who tipped off
the FBI where the hijackers’ car (conveniently filled with “evidence”) was
parked, having had a chance encounter with the hijackers at an airport parking
lot. That story—much-ballyhooed by the media on Sept. 11—was quickly dispatched
to the Memory Hole.

Hersh also
raised questions about whether or not bin Laden’s network was capable of
carrying out the terrorist attack alone. Hersh noted that a senior military
officer had suggested to him that, in Hersh’s words, “a major foreign
intelligence service might also have been involved.”

And while
Hersh did not point any fingers anywhere, a reader familiar with Hersh’s past
history of pinpointing intrigue by Israel’s Mossad could perhaps read between
the lines and guess at which foreign nation Hersh’s source might, however
obliquely, be alluding.

And for
those who doubted that Israel would endanger American Jews via terrorism,
consider this: hard-line Israelis are willing to kill Jews if it means assuring
Israel’s survival.

The late
Rabbi Meir Kahane—founder of the Jewish Defense League, and a spiritual mentor
of hard-line fundamentalists in Israel—exemplified those willing to sacrifice
other Jews to guarantee Israel’s future. Kahane called for killing “Hellenist
[i.e. Western-oriented] spiritually sick [Jews] who threaten the existence of
Judaism.” And needless to say, that would include those Jews working in slick
offices in the World Trade Center, living on Long Island, rather than
kibbutzing in Israel.

Israeli
journalist Yair Kotler reported in his book, Heil Kahane, that Kahane wrote that “the adoption of foreign,
gentilized [i.e. non-Jewish] concepts by a Jewish state . . . opens the door to
a national tragedy.”

In his own
book, Time to Go Home, Kahane called
for all Jews to “go home” to Israel—the only safe place for Jews. Those who
refused to “go home” were not safe and expendable. The CIA’s 1979 report on Israeli
intelligence said this widely-held view mirrors “the aggressively ideological
nature of Zionism.”

In fact, this
Jewish attitude toward the West (exactly what the media says is the Islamic
attitude) has support at the Mossad’s top levels. In The False Prophet, his
biography of Rabbi Kahane, the late Robert I. Friedman revealed that “high-ranking
members of Mossad” were directing Kahane and that the “central player” was
former Mossad operations chief (and later prime minister) Yitzhak Shamir, an
often hateful critic of the United States America.

When Kahane
said America would become “the major enemy of Israel,” due to “economic
disintegration which no administration can stem,” he enunciated a popular
Israeli view, one which is not widely known, particularly to American Christian
supporters of Israel.

In his
Kahane biography, Friedman noted that Kahane’s views “have taken root and have
become ‘respectable,’” and that right-wing Israeli leader Ariel Sharon was one
of the “most potent supporters” of such extremism. In the Oct. 15, 2001 issue
of the stridently pro-Israel New Republic, Israeli writer Yossi Klein Halevi echoed
this view:

The destruction of the World Trade Center has
partially rehabilitated, if only by default, the Zionist promise of safe refuge
for the Jewish people.

In the last year, it had become a much-noted
irony that Israel was the country where a Jew was most likely to be killed for
being a Jew.

For many, the United States had beckoned as the
real Jewish refuge; in a poll taken just before the bin Laden attacks, 37
percent of Israelis said their friends or relatives were discussing emigration.
That probably changed on Sept. 11.

I was among the thousands of Israelis who
crowded Kennedy Airport on the weekend after the attack, desperate to find a
flight to Tel Aviv. “At least we’re going back where it’s safe,” people joked.

Everyone seemed to have a story about an
Israeli living in New York who just barely escaped the devastation. If this
could happen in Manhattan, the reasoning went, you might as well take your
chances at home.

What Halevi
described reflects the widespread ideology known as “catastrophic Zionism”
which rejects America, saying Israel is the only safe Jewish refuge.

In The
Ascendance of Israel’s Radical Right, Israeli scholar Ehud Sprinzak asserted
that these views are “a major school” of modern Israeli thought. Sprinzak
described the Israeli movement, Sikarikin, which honors ancient Jews who
“conducted a systematic terror campaign against Jewish moderates who were ready
to come to terms with the Romans on questions of religious purity.” Israelis
consider these terrorists “the symbolic defenders of religious and nationalist
purity.”

Another
popular rabbi, Israel Ariel, would risk massive loss of Jewish lives to achieve
the “elimination” of the Arab countries to guarantee Israel’s survival. The
hawkish rabbi once proclaimed:

There is a ruling that a war is permitted as
long as no more than one-sixth of the nation be killed. And this was stated in relation
to an ordinary war, a fight between neighbors.

A war for Eretz Israel does not depend on the
number of casualties. The command is “Ase!” (“Do it!”), and you may be sure
that the number of casualties will thus be minimal.

As far as
non-Jews, Sprinzak cited Rabbi David Bar-Haim who declared that the concept
that Jews and non-Jews are equals “stands in total contrast to the Torah of
Moses, and is derived from a total ignorance and an assimilation of alien Western
values.”

Ben-Haim
cited ten religious authorities who “repeatedly proposed that Gentiles are more
beast than human, ”whereas,“ only two authorities recognize non-Jews as full
human beings created in the image of God.”

Bear in
mind: these comments from supposed “allies” represent widespread opinion in
Israel’s military and intelligence services.

And should
anyone still doubt the concept of right-wing Israeli “suicide bombers” (posing as
Arabs) orchestrating the events of Sept. 11, consider Israel’s own effective
contingency plan for national suicide.

Most
Americans have no idea that the possibility of a full-fledged nuclear “suicide
bombing” by the state of Israel itself is a cornerstone of Israel’s national
security policy. This policy is better known by what the aforementioned Seymour
Hersh referred to, in his book by the same name, as “the Samson Option.”

As Hersh
documented—and which Israeli historian Avner Cohen has confirmed in even more
in-depth detail in his own book, Israel
and the Bomb—Israel’s entire national defense policy (from its inception) was
framed around the development of a nuclear bomb. As Hersh made clear, the
Israelis are essentially willing, if necessary, to “blow up the world”—including
themselves—if they have to do so in order to defeat their Arab foes if they
perceive that Israel’s survival is actually in danger.

The
so-called “Samson Option” for Israel is based on the story of Samson in the
Bible who—after being captured by the Philistines—brought down Dagon’s Temple
in Gaza and killed himself along with his enemies. This is what Hersh notes
Israeli nuclear planners considered "the Samson Option"—that, as
Samson of the Bible, after being captured by the Philistines, brought down
Dagon's Temple in Gaza and killed himself along with his enemies. As Hersh put
it: "For Israel's nuclear advocates, the Samson Option became another way
of saying 'Never again."

In his book
Open Secrets—a study of Israel’s
strategic foreign policy—Israeli writer Israel Shahak wrote that, contrary
to general perception, Israel does not seek peace. It is a myth, he said, that
there is any real difference between the supposedly “conflicting” policies
being pursued by the “opposing” Likud and Labor blocs whose rivalries, played
out on the global stage, have overflowed into the American political process.

Shahak
contended that the Israeli lobby in the United States—with all its
often-seemingly diverse factions—is ultimately propping up Israel’s policy of
expansionism with the final aim of consolidating “Eretz Israel”—an imperial
state in control of practically the entire Middle East.

Based
almost entirely on public pronouncements in the Hebrew language press in
Israel, Shahak’s provocative volume points out that what the Israeli government
tells its own people about its policies is entirely inconsistent with Israel’s
insistence to the West and the world at large that Israel “wants peace.” In
Shahak’s informed judgment:

One cannot
understand Israel until one understands Israel is essentially a militarist
state and an un-democratic one at that, evidenced by the second-class status
accorded its Arab inhabitants and those Christian and Muslim Palestinians in
occupied territories. The nation’s very foundation rests upon its military and
defense policies, which, as Shahak makes clear, ultimately stem from the
fanatic religious tendencies dictating the thinking of its military and
intelligence leaders who are the prime movers behind the engine of state.

Although
Israel is quite capable of forging temporary (and often covert) alliances and
strategic arrangements even with Arab or Muslim states—even to the point of
dealing with the hated Saddam Hussein when it was in Israel’s immediate
interest and even, at one point, with the Islamic Republic of Iran—the bottom
line is, quite simply, that—as Shahak demonstrates quite chillingly—Israel will
say and do anything to pursue its determined goal of winning total domination
at all costs. If it fails, Israel is perfectly willing to choose “the Samson
Option.”

Thus, it
seems, when Winston Churchill said that the Jews suffered from a strong impulse
of self-destruction, he was not far off the mark.

So the idea
that Israeli Jews under the discipline of Israeli intelligence may indeed have
postured as Arabs on Sept. 11, leading the ill-fated 9-11 airliners to their
destruction, is not quite so easily discounted.

Therefore,
my report on the possibility that “mista’arvim” Jews, working for the Mossad,
had actually been the “real” 9-11 hijackers—or, at the very least, manipulating
genuine “bin Laden Muslims” in some aspect of the 9-11 conspiracy—had some very
real and very solid historical and geopolitical foundation.

Despite
this, even a lot of folks who suspected Israeli involvement in 9-11 seemed to
avoid mentioning this possibility. It seems that many of them preferred more
exotic, less simple, explanations.

The truth
is that so many 9-11 truth seekers preferred to dabble in endless debates about
forensic matters relating to 9-11 that are, in most respects, far beyond the
understanding of the average person and which thus have very little impact in
awakening Americans to 9-11 truth.

And, in
fact, one can find genuine “experts” who take completely opposite positions on
these issues, with both (or, as the case may be, multiple) contrary arguments
all seeming to put forth logical and scientifically-based explanations for the
“truth” they have uncovered.

The
bottom-line consequence of all of this is that 9-11 truthers find themselves in
a bind, arguing among themselves over such matters as “what actually brought
down the trade towers” and getting distracted from the real question at hand:
WHO did it?

In fact, my
speculation relating to the possibility that Israeli Jews were posing as
“Arabs” on 9-11—first published in American
Free Press, on Dec. 24, 2001—was actually picked up and—on Dec. 31,
2001—republished in its entirety by Arab
News, an influential English-language newspaper of the Saudi Arabian
government. And the story was subsequently picked up by Arab-language
newspapers elsewhere.

That the publication
of my article by the Saudi government-sponsored journal set in motion a
little-publicized (but politically significant) international controversy is,
in itself (I think) quite telling indeed.

After Arab News published the article, the
U.S. government made an official demand that the Saudis repudiate any
suggestion the hijackers were anything other than Arabs. My article apparently
hit too close to the mark (and to this day, I think it may very well have been
a bulls-eye).

But while
many American critics would, naturally, say it was no surprise that an Arab
media voice might take heart in the thesis that Israeli agents (posing as
Arabs) might put themselves forward as suicide bombers, the thought of a Jewish
Israeli suicide bomber is not something considered beyond the pale by the
average Israeli.

In fact,
the concept of a devoutly-religious Israeli suicide bomber was the talk of
Israel for several years in the wake of the release of a blockbuster
Israeli-made motion picture, Time of
Favor. The Hebrew-language film was not only a major hit, but it also
captured six prizes in the Israeli Academy Awards, including best picture, best
screenplay, best actor and best actress—quite an accomplishment indeed.

What is
interesting is that Time of Favor was
scheduled for release in New York theaters in September of 2001, but in the
wake of the Sept. 11 “suicide bombing” tragedy that rocked the Big Apple and
the world, the premiere was shelved. And according to the New York-based Forward,
the respected Jewish newspaper, the film had even been played on flights of
Israel’s El Al airlines.

The drama
told the story of a brilliant Orthodox rabbinical student who—when rebuffed in
romance—launched a plan to stage a suicide bombing under Israel’s Temple Mount,
the site which has been a longstanding point of contention between Israel and
the Muslim world.

Forward noted, intriguingly, that “central to the
drama” is a character, an Orthodox rabbi, “for whom the Orthodox Zionist
soldiers are disciples as well as students.”

The balance
of the film told of the effort to stop the fanatic from carrying out his scheme
which, if successful, could have sparked a major war, ushering in the Armageddon
that Christian fundamentalists pray for.

Joseph
Cedar, the film’s director, admitted to Forward that American audiences might
find the film unsettling. “It’s about putting the Jews on the terrorist side,
which is a reality, but it’s not a thing that American Jews, for example, are
used to hearing. It’s about suspecting Jews of belonging to a terrorist group.”

What
Forward did not mention was that most Americans—including those who lost
friends and family in the 9-11 attacks—will probably never see the film which
played largely in small “art” houses and in theaters catering to
“Jewish-interest” audiences. And therefore, of course, they will never realize
that Jewish boys can be suicide bombers, too.

Nor
likewise will most Americans probably ever know one of the biggest secrets of
the 20th Century—one carefully buried by the most influential media voices of
our times: The fact that on Oct. 18, 1983 a Jewish Israeli suicide bomber,
strapped with explosives, was captured in the spectators’ gallery of the U.S.
House of Representatives in the U.S. Capitol in Washington. When it happened,
it barely made the news.

Until I
personally first unveiled this story to a national audience in the September
30, 2002 issue of American Free Press,
anyone using the popular “Google” search engine on the Internet would have not
found even a single mention of this little-known event.

Since that
time, however, word of the story has begun to spread, thanks to people who read
my report in American Free Press (or
a later reference to it in my book, The
Confessions of an Anti-Semite) and who subsequently distributed the
information via the Internet.

However,
despite the fact that Americans know all about “Muslim suicide
bombers”—particularly in the wake of the 9-11 tragedy—the little-known story of
an Israeli suicide bomber inside the United States Capitol building remains
largely unknown.

Even The Washington Post—the newspaper of
record in the nation’s capital—buried the story in its Oct. 19, 1983“Metro”
section on page C13—across from the obituaries and next to a story about local political
candidates in Fairfax County, Virginia. Evidently an attempt to bomb the U.S.
Capitol—by an Israeli, anyway—wasn’t front page news.

The Post story about the Israeli attempt to
bomb the Capitol was headlined “Man Arrested in U.S. Capitol After Alleged Bomb
Threat”—note that it was “only” an “alleged” threat—and reported as follows:

A
22-year-old man was arrested in the public gallery of the House of
Representatives during a roll-call vote yesterday after he allegedly threatened
to blow up the building, U.S. Capitol police said.

The man, whom
police said carried an Israeli passport indicating he had arrived in this
country two weeks ago, was removed from the gallery without incident and taken
downstairs to be questioned.

There,
police said, they found the man had two soft-drink bottles filled with a
powdered substance attached to his belt and wired to an apparently operative
detonating cap.

Police said
they charged Israel Rubinowits with threatening to kidnap a person or cause
bodily harm in the incident, pending arraignment today in D.C. Superior Court.

The
incident occurred about 1:30 pm as House members were in the chamber voting on
a measure that would allow the U.S. Treasury to strike and sell a medal
commemorating Vietnam veterans. The measure passed 410-0.

The man was
sitting in House Gallery 10, an area of about 75 seats located in the far left
corner of the chamber from the speaker’s platform, among a public tour group of
about 50 persons when detectives noticed he was acting suspiciously and mumbling
to himself, officials said. As the officers approached the man, officials said,
he allegedly threatened to blow up the building.

Officials
said the bottles and suspected detonator were turned over to demolition experts
for examination, but it was unclear late last night whether they could have
caused an explosion.

Rubinowits
was being held last night in the central cell block at police headquarters.
Officials said they [had] no additional information about his background.

On Nov.
2—nearly two weeks after the attempted suicide bombing—America’s most
prestigious newspaper, TheNew York Times, finally deemed it
appropriate to report on the story—buried on page A-22, hardly the front page
of the distinguished daily.

And weirdly
(or perhaps not so weirdly) a check of TheNew York Times online will find that
the story (as indexed by the Times)
is titled “Bomb Carrier Found in U.S. Home Prompts Tightened Security.” So according
to the headline in the Times, the
story was about a bomb found in a “home”—not the U.S. House of Representatives!

But the
story did, in fact, tell of the Israeli suicide bomber in the House, raising
the question as to why the word “home”—rather than the word “House”—somehow
managed to be used “mistakenly” in a newspaper not generally perceived to be
rife with typographical atrocities.

Wayne Todd,
editor of the National Legislative Service & Security Association, noted in
the Nov.1983 issue of his newsletter that the story of the Israeli suicide
bomber’s attempt to detonate his weapon of terrorism inside the Capitol was
“virtually ignored by the media.”

In any
event, on Nov. 9—less than a month afterward—a bomb did explode near the Senate
Chamber inside the U.S. Capitol, blowing the doors off a room leading to the
offices of then-Senate Minority Leader Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.). The explosion
took place just seven to nine minutes after a caller phoned Byrd’s office and
warned a bomb was about to explode. Media reports said a group calling itself
the “Armed Resistance Unit” claimed credit, saying its motive was to protest
the U.S. invasion of Grenada and the presence of U.S. Marines in Lebanon.

Why
Byrd—not known as a major advocate of U.S. intervention abroad—was the target
was never explained. However, considering the fact Byrd was one of the few
members of Congress in recent times to challenge Israel’s “war lobby” in
Washington, there is always the possibility the bombing (apparently aimed at
Byrd) was an Israeli “false flag” to shift the focus of blame elsewhere and
hide Israel’s culpability.

In 1998
even the Legislative Resource Center (LRC) of the House of Representatives had
“no further information” on what happened to the would-be Israeli suicide
bomber after he was charged with, in the LRC’s words, “making threats.” However,
The Titusville (Pennsylvania) Herald,
reported on Jan.9, 1986—long after the 1983 incident—that Rubinowits had been
deported to Israel, much like the Dancing Israelis of 9-11. But even the
Herald’ contained the report about the Israeli bomber amidst a longer story
focusing on Arab terrorism!

Although I
am not prepared to suggest that the young Israeli captured in the U.S. Capitol
was acting as an asset of Israel when he engaged in his failed suicide
mission—obviously I have no proof that he was—the possibility should not be
ruled out.

However,
these are the points that need to be emphasized: 1) There is a long-standing
“suicide tradition” in Jewish history; 2) Modern-day Jewish zealots have talked
about suicide missions; 3) There is evidence of Israeli utilization of Jews,
posing as Arabs, in covert missions; and 4) Israel—as a state—is ideologically
prepared to sacrifice other Jews to achieve the ultimate end of securing
Israel’s survival.

Understanding
these critical points is central to understanding Israel’s ultimate role in
orchestrating the 9-11 terrorist tragedy.

CHAPTER TWENTY-FOUR

Israel’s Covert
Manipulation of Muslim Extremists:

Toward Understanding
Israel’s Secret Role

in the 9-11 Terrorist
Tragedy

In the
preceding chapter we pondered the possibility that at least some of the primary
alleged players on 9-11—the reputed Arab hijackers—were actually Israeli Jews,
so-called “mista’arvim” posing as Arabs, that these Israelis literally
sacrificed themselves in a suicide mission designed to help set the stage for
the vaunted “Clash of Civilizations” that was a foundation for the “War on
Terror” that was launched in the wake of 9-11.

However,
even if—per chance—this thesis might be mistaken if in part (or in whole), the
fact remains that Israel has a long and ugly history of providing covert
support (and financing) for Islamic fundamentalist extremists and this fact
alone cannot, under any circumstances, be dismissed in considering the
likelihood that Israel was indeed the prime mover behind the 9-11 terrorist
attacks.

Why in the
world, some more naive folks would ask, would Israel—so long under siege from
Islamic fundamentalists—provide covert support for the very extremists who seek
to destroy that little bastion of democratic principles and Western interests
in the Middle East What interests could the Israelis and the likes of Osama bin
Laden and his followers ever have in common?

The answer
to those provocative questions point toward a dirty little secret that the
major media in America has long kept under wraps.

As hard as
it may be for the average American to digest, there is a solid record of
evidence pointing toward a long-time—albeit little-known—role by Israel’s
Mossad in providing financing and tactical support for the very “Muslim
extremists” presumed to be Israel’s worst enemies.

The truth
is that Muslim extremists have proven useful (if often unwitting) tools in
advancing Israel’s own geopolitical agenda.

Although
the media has devoted much coverage to the topic of “Islamic fundamentalism,”
the media has failed to pursue the documented behind-the-scenes linkage between
Israel and the terrorist networks now the focus of media obsession.

In fact,
evidence suggests that the world’s number one Muslim villain—Osama bin
Laden—was certainly working with the Mossad in years past even if, by the time
of the 9-11 terrorist attacks, he was (by that point) operating as an
independent “wild card,” so to speak.

Although
many Americans are now aware that bin Laden’s early efforts against the Soviets
in Afghanistan were sponsored by the CIA, the media has been reticent to point
out that this arms pipeline—described by Covert Action Information Bulletin
(September 1987) as “the second largest covert operation” in the CIA’s
history—was also, according to former Mossad operative Victor Ostrovsky
(writing in The Other Side of Deception),
under the direct supervision of the Mossad.

Ostrovsky
noted that: “It was a complex pipeline since a large portion of the
Mujahideen’s weapons were American-made and were supplied to the Muslim
Brotherhood directly from Israel, using as carriers the Bedouin nomads who
roamed the demilitarized zones in the Sinai.”

Former ABC
News correspondent John K. Cooley, in Unholy
Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism, provided
confirmation for Ostrovsky’s allegations. He wrote:

Discussion of the input of outsiders to
training and operations in Afghanistan would be incomplete without mention of Iran
and the State of Israel. Iran’s major role in training and in supply is a
matter of historical record. As for Israel, the evidence is much sketchier.

At least half a dozen knowledgeable individuals
insisted to the author, without citing proof, that Israel was indeed involved in
both training and supply . . . .

Whether or not units of Israel’s elite special
forces trained the Muslim warriors, who would soon turn their guns against Israel
in Muslim organizations like Hamas, is a well-guarded Israeli secret.

Several Americans and Britons who took part in
the training program have assured the author that Israelis did indeed take
part, though no one will own to having actually seen, or spoken with, Israeli
instructors or intelligence operatives in Afghanistan or Pakistan.

What is certain is that of all the members of
the anti-Soviet coalition, the Israelis have been the most successful in
concealing the details and even the broad traces of a training role; much more
than the Americans and British . . . .

In
addition, Sami Masri, a former insider in the infamous Bank of Credit and
Commerce International (BCCI) told Jonathan Beaty and S.C. Gwynne (both of Time
magazine) that BCCI “was financing Israeli arms going into Afghanistan. There
were Israeli arms, Israeli planes, and CIA pilots. Arms were coming into
Afghanistan and [BCCI was] facilitating.”

In fact,
obviously, although BCCI was generally said to be an “Arab” or “Muslim” bank,
BCCI was very much working in close concert with the Mossad in the very realm
where bin Laden first made his mark.

So there is
evidence, indeed, that bin Laden was very much part of a network closely tied
to Mossad intrigue in the arming and training of the Afghan rebels.

However,
there’s much more to the story of the Mossad’s ties to the so-called Islamic
terror networks that are the stuff of American nightmares today.

In his
follow-up book, The Other Side of
Deception, ex-Mossad figure Victor Ostrovsky unveiled the disturbing fact
that the Mossad had a long history of supporting radical Islamic groups for its
own purposes.

Pointing
out that Arab- and Muslim-hating hard-liners in Israel’s Mossad believe
Israel’s survival lies in its military strength and that “this strength arises
from the need to answer the constant threat of war,” the Israeli hard-liners
fear that any peace with any Arab state could weaken Israel and bring about its
demise. In that vein, Ostrovsky wrote:

Supporting the radical elements of Muslim
fundamentalism sat well with the Mossad’s general plan for the region. An Arab world
run by fundamentalists would not be a party to any negotiations with the West,
thus leaving Israel again as the only democratic, rational country in the
region.

One of
Israel’s prime targets was the kingdom of Jordan, then-ruled by King Hussein
who was actually in the process of making peace overtures toward Israel. Ostrovsky
reported that the Mossad was determined to “destabilize Jordan to the point of
civil anarchy.” The means used were to be:

A high influx of counterfeit currency, causing
distrust in the market; arming religious fundamentalist elements similar to the
Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood; and assassinating leading figures who are
symbols of stability, causing riots in the universities and forcing the
government to respond with harsh measures and lose popularity.

Actually,
this tactic has also been used by the Mossad in dealing with non-Arab nations. For
example, in the March 1982 edition of his newsletter, Middle East Perspective,
Dr. Alfred Lilienthal, a pioneer American Jewish critic of Israel, reported
that Italy’s then-top-ranking magistrate, Ferdinando Imposimato, had charged,
in Imposimato’s words:

At least until 1978, the Israeli secret service
infiltrated Italian subversive organizations and on more than one occasion gave
arms, money and information to the [terrorist] Red Brigades. The Israeli plan
was to reduce Italy to a country torn by civil war so that the United States
would have to depend more on Israeli for security in the Mediterranean.

Lilienthal
noted that Imposimato’s sources were two jailed Red Brigades leaders who
reported the Israelis not only helped the Red Brigades enroll new recruits but
also track down traitors who fled abroad.

Even
columnist Jack Anderson, a devoted propaganda conduit for the Israeli lobby,
has bragged of Israel’s skill in such realms. As long ago as September 17, 1972
Anderson wrote that:

The Israelis are also skillful at exploiting
Arab rivalries and turning Arab against Arab. The Kurdish tribes, for example, inhabit
the mountains of northern Iraq. Every month, a secret Israeli envoy slips into
the mountains from the iranian side to deliver $50,000 to Kurdish leader Mulla
Mustafa al Barzani. The subsidy insures Kurdish hostility against Iraq, whose
government is militantly anti-Israel.

In an April
25, 1983 column, Anderson pointed out that one secret State Department report
speculated that if Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yassir Arafat were
to be dislodged, “the Palestinian movement will probably disintegrate into
radical splinter groups, which, in combination with other revolutionary forces
in the region, would pose a grave threat to the moderate Arab governments.”

Then,
according to Anderson’s account, the State Department reported that:

Israel seems determined to vent this threat . .
. and can be expected to greatly expand its covert cooperations with
revolutionary movements.

Anderson
added that “two well-placed intelligence sources” had explained that this meant
that it was in Israel’s interests to “divide and conquer” by setting various
Palestinian factions against one another. This would then help destabilize all
of the Arab and Islamic regimes in the Middle East. Anderson then stated flat
out that the sources said that “Israel had secretly provided funds to Abu
Nidal’s group.”

Anderson’s
reports about Abu Nidal’s apparent ties to the Mossad were only the tip of the
iceberg. British journalist Patrick Seale, an acknowledged authority on the
Middle East, devoted an entire book, entitled Abu Nidal: A Gun for Hire, outlining and documenting his thesis that
Nidal was largely a surrogate for the Mossad all along.

In the wake
of 9-11, Nidal (then reportedly in retirement) had been replaced by Osama bin
Laden in media headlines as “the world’s most wanted terrorist.” (But Nidal
himself died in 2002 in Baghdad, allegedly killed at the orders of Saddam
Hussein.)

In any
case, like Nidal’s efforts to divide the Arab world, particularly the
Palestinian cause, bin Laden’s activities seem to have a congruence of
interests with those of Israel, although this is something that the major media
has not been ready to acknowledge.

While bin
Laden himself (quite notably) had never been known to have attacked an Israeli
or Jewish target, even The Washington
Post noted that bin Laden’s primary goal was bolstering “a destabilizing
grand of Islamic fundamentalism in a long list of existing Middle East and Central
Asia regimes.”

That same Post article revealed that—contrary to
the general public view that somehow bin Laden was in league with favorite
Israeli targets such as Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and Libya’s Muammor Qadaffi, a
former bin Laden associate had testified that bin Laden was, in fact, quite
hostile to both the Iraqi leader and the Libyan leader. This again quite in
line with Israel’s attitude toward the two Arab icons.

So considering
bin Laden’s previous ties to the joint CIA-Mossad operations in Afghanistan
coupled with his unusual congruence of agenda with the Mossad, the question
naturally arises as to whether bin Laden was a successor to presumed Mossad
surrogate Abu Nidal in more ways than one.

Thus, at
the very least, if bin Laden was not acting as a Mossad asset on 9-11 (and for
the record, I do not believe that he was), the fact remains that bin Laden
nonetheless was fully in place and served as an ideal “false flag” when the
Mossad needed the “perfect villain” to serve as the fall guy, the patsy, when
the 9-11 conspiracy came to fruition.

In the end,
the idea of the CIA and the Mossad financing Islamic terrorist groups is not
extraordinary to more savvy folks.

As long ago
as March 15, 1982, writing in The
Spotlight, Andrew St. George revealed that the big secret about the scandal
involving former top CIA official Edwin Wilson’s international arms smuggling
was Wilson’s partnership with the Mossad. While Wilson contended that these
activities were done with the approval of the CIA—which denied it, of
course—the major media kept Wilson’s Mossad link under wraps.

St. George
reported that Wilson had teamed with two veteran Mossad agents, Hans Ziegler
and David Langham, who set up a firm, Zimex, Ltd., based in Switzerland. The
project was known by its CIA cryptonym, KLapex, and was nothing more than joint
undercover CIA-Mossad operation to set up a chain of dummy business firms for
the purpose of selling and chartering personal jet aircraft to Arab leaders
that would then be used for Israeli intelligence purposes.

Ranging
from corporate jets to giant 707s, the planes came with flight and maintenance
crews, each of which numbered Mossad operatives among its members. The primary
mission of the Israeli spies was to operate and service the electronic
eavesdropping systems concealed in the cabin of each plane to record the
confidential conversations of Arab statesmen in midflight. However, the
commercial network under KLapex was used for an even more sinister purpose:

To provide covert aid to some nationalistic,
pan-Arab and Islamic radical movements in Sudan, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and
the other Persian Gulf states. In each case, when the Mossad extended such
secret assistance—whether in cash or access to smuggled weapons, or in some
other form—the purpose was to weaken or pressure some government thought hostile
or dangerous to Israel at that particular moment.

While I had
unveiled many of these little-known details in the pages of American Free Press in some detail
immediately after 9-11—with the predictable response that I was accused of
promulgating “anti-Semitic conspiracy theories,” the establishment news source,
UPI, finally confirmed in a June 28, 2002 dispatch what I had reported some
eight months previously: the fact that Israel did have a strange history of covert
financing and support for Islamic fundamentalist groups, a point that most
Americans would find absolutely inconceivable.

Veteran UPI
correspondent Richard Sale confirmed the substance of AFP’s initial report, citing
not only a variety of named and un-named past and present U.S. government
officials but also documents obtained by UPI from the Israel-based Institute
for Counter-Terrorism.

Noting that
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was vowing to fight “Palestinian terror,”
declaring Hamas as “the deadliest terrorist group that we have ever had to
face,” Sale noted wryly that “Sharon left something out.” That “something,”
according to Sale, was that while Israel and Hamas were then locked in deadly
combat, “according to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning
in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas
over a period of years.”

Sale’s
expose demonstrated conclusively that while Israel was now calling for the
United States to lend its military might to help Israel crush the burgeoning
Hamas movement among disgusted Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and the
Gaza Strip, it turns out that it was Israel itself that helped nurture Hamas in
the first place.

In short,
Israel was ultimately to blame for the very “Islamic terrorism” and the wave of
suicide bombings then rocking Israel.

Sale
pointed out that Hamas was actually legally registered as an Islamic social and
religious entity in Israel in 1978 and that U.S. administration officials said
that funding for Hamas came from not just the oil-producing Arab states but
“directly and indirectly from Israel.”

While the
PLO itself was secular, promoting Palestinian nationalism, Hamas was intent
upon setting up a transnational state ruled by the tenets of Islam.

Cited an
unnamed former senior CIA official saying Israel’s support for Hamas “was a
direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular [Palestine
Liberation Organization] by using a competing religious alternative,” Sale also
quoted Tony Cordesman, a respected veteran

Middle East
analyst associated with the Center for Strategic Studies, who said Israel
“aided Hamas directly—the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the
PLO.”

Then, when
the PLO moved its base of operations to Beirut, Hamas began growing in
influence in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. The movement also received strong
support generated by the rise of the Iranian-backed Hezbollah movement in
Lebanon.

All of
these elements converged at precisely the time when Israeli was funding Hamas.
However, even the growing strength and independence of Hamas did not deter the
Israelis from supporting Hamas.

Quite the
contrary.

A U.S. government
official—who asked not to be named—told Sale that “The thinking on the part of
some of the right-wing Israeli establishment was that Hamas and the others, if
they gained control, would refuse to have any part of the peace process and
would torpedo any agreements put in place. Israel would still be the only
democracy in the region for the United States to deal with.”

In other
words, Israel was propping up Hamas to undermine Yasser Arafat and the PLO and
thereby disrupting the very real peace initiatives being made by Arafat. In
short, Israel wanted an unending state of war in order to be able to continue
to justify its occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and—inevitably—expand
Israel’s borders into what is known as “Greater Israel,” a geopolitical entity
reaching from “the Nile to the Euphrates,” encompassing much of the Arab Middle
East.

(This
maneuvering by Israel—the stoking of chaos in the Middle East for greater
purposes, including the destabilization of its Arab neighbors, and, at the same
time, effectively building Israel from within, by enforcing a “siege” mentality
in the face of presumed threats from others—is part of a little-known Israeli
geopolitical philosophy known as “war Zionism” or “catastrophic Zionism.”)

In fact,
this strategy has, in many respects, made Israel what it is today: a nation
where its inter-related military and “homeland security” industries are booming
and Israel arms and security technology exports are expanding exponentially
worldwide, with Israeli firms and their subsidiaries virtually monopolizing the
“homeland security” market even within the United States itself—and much of
this as a direct consequence of the 9-11 terrorist tragedy and the ensconcement
of the concept of “homeland security” on American soil.)

So it was
that with the sponsorship of Hamas that the Israelis had set in motion—as they
soon discovered—a movement that quickly grew out of control. And although the
Israelis sought to manipulate Hamas from within—penetrating it with Israeli
spies—independent-minded Hamas leaders weeded out Israeli collaborators. Hamas
thus became a self-sustaining, popularly-backed movement that emerged as a very
real threat to Israel, to the extent that any such movement could be a threat to
the well-armed and U.S.-backed Zionist state.

UPI’s
Richard Sale pointed out that Israel’s posturing and manipulation “disgusts”
U.S. analysts who have watched Israel’s initial nurturing of the very groups
that Israel now demands that the United States and the world wage war against on
Israel’s behalf.

Belying
Israel’s media-vaunted skill at “fighting terrorism,” former State Department
counter-terrorism official Larry Johnson told Sale: “The Israelis are their own
worst enemies when it comes to fighting terrorism. The Israelis are like a guy
who sets fire to his hair and then tries to put it out by hitting it with a
hammer. They do more to incite and sustain terrorism than curb it.”

Those who
view the Middle East conflict in a childish “Good Israelis vs. Evil Arab
Terrorists” perspective will be unable to understand the facts that The Spotlight, then American Free Press and now UPI (via Richard Sale) had unraveled.
However, those who dare to look at the realities of geopolitics will get a
shocking perspective on how Israel has manipulated Middle East events.

And in the
bigger picture, it may help bring us to a closer understanding of how the
Israelis certainly utilized at least some genuine (unknowing) Islamic
fundamentalists in carrying off the first great crime of the 20th Century: the
9-11 tragedy. This was indeed a critical part of the false flag template for
terror that made Israel’s monstrous attack on America possible.

CHAPTER TWENTY-FIVE:

Israel’s Agents Inside
Al-Qaeda:

A Critical Element of
the Mossad’s

Template for Terror in
the 9-11 Conspiracy

After seven
months of non-stop declarations by U.S. government spokesmen in the wake of
9-11 that there existed solid proof tying 19 Muslim men to plotting the Sept.
11 terrorist attacks, FBI Director Robert Mueller actually admitted quite the
opposite in a speech that he delivered to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco
on April 19, 2002.

In its May
20, 2002 issue, American Free Press
reported this remarkable revelation which was based on a largely little-noticed
report, originating with The Los Angeles
Times, that was reprinted in The Washington
Post on April 30.

In his
speech in San Francisco, Mueller said that the purported hijackers, in his
words, “left no paper trial.” The FBI director stated flatly:

In our investigation, we have not uncovered a
single piece of paper—either here in the United States or in the treasure trove
of information that has turned up in Afghanistan and elsewhere—that mentioned
any aspect of the Sept. 11 plot.

Law enforcement officials say that while they
have been able to reconstruct the movements of the hijackers before the attacks—all
legal except for a few speeding tickets—they have found no evidence of their
actual plotting.

The Times reporters acknowledged that
Mueller’s comments “offer the FBI’s most comprehensive and detailed assessment
to date of its investigation, remarkable as much for what investigators have
not found as for what they have.”

The FBI
director explained away the absence of evidence by making the disingenuous
assertion that the hijackers used “meticulous planning, extraordinary secrecy
and extensive knowledge of how America works” to conceal their scheme.

Mueller
made this claim despite the fact that in the immediate wake of the Sept. 11
attacks, a variety of U.S. officials and media sources announced, almost
instantaneously, that there was firm evidence not only that these 19 Muslim men
were agents of Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda “network” but that they were indeed
the individuals who hijacked the doomed flights on Sept. 11.

Mueller
seemed to forget that early government and media reports loudly hyped
“discoveries”—letters and other documents—in the luggage and personal
belongings of the presumed hijackers which “proved” that they were on a
“mission for Allah,” etc., etc. Now Mueller’s comments contradicted everything
that had been said, everything that most Americans now assumed was “a fact.”

Government
spokesmen defended the cited lack of evidence as somehow proving how
professional the hijackers were, even in the face of the publicly-acknowledged
scandal surrounding the fact that two of the hijackers purportedly got into the
United States even though they were on a CIA terrorist “watch list.”

Skeptics
rightly asked: If the 19 Muslims weren’t the hijackers, then who were? That 19
Muslim men who had apparently disappeared were named as the hijackers was not
in doubt. What was in doubt is whether those 19 men were actually plotting
anything, either individually or together. The amazing possibility remained
that others carried out the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, using the identities of
the 19 Muslims who were assigned guilt in the tragedy.

In fact,
there was the possibility that someone was pretending, prior to Sept. 11, to be
Muhammad Atta. This would recall the strange appearances of multiple “Lee
Harvey Oswalds” in various places doing suspicious things prior to the JFK
assassination.

For
example, although The Washington Post
reported on May 1, 2002 that longstanding claims that Atta met in Prague with a
purported Iraqi intelligence officer turned out not to be true, some sort of
meeting did take place, except that, according to the Post, “they were no longer certain that Atta was the person” in
question. The Post cited a Bush administration
official as saying that the person believed to be Atta “may be different from
Atta.” So, although there was someone later identified as Atta in Prague,
according to the Post, “there was no
evidence Atta left or returned to the U.S.” at the time he was supposedly in
Prague.

So it was
that when the official 9-11 report, issued by the much-touted “blue ribbon”
commission charged with the responsibility of telling the American people how
and why the 9-11 attacks were able to happen, finally hit the presses—emerging
as a veritable “best seller”—the truth is that it proved to be mostly a lot of
fiction, based on lies and prevarications by some pretty suspect characters (as
we shall see).

And that’s
not to mention the additional “spin” added by a host of “bipartisan” ghost
writers, representing a bevy of special interest groups that had a keen desire
to have the story of “what really happened” on 9-11 told the way they want it.
(Earlier, in Chapter Twenty-One we examined how the Israeli lobby pushed a
potential roadblock to its agenda out of a key post in the congressional
inquiry into 9-11.)

Although
Americans beat a path to bookstores to grab up copies of the 9-11 report, what
few realized is that even top-notch U.S. intelligence investigators and others
had raised questions—from the beginning—about how reliable the report’s primary
sources really were.

For
example, although the report was written in an almost grandiloquent and certainly
omniscient tone, the fact is that the panoramic overview of Osama bin Laden’s
vaunted Al-Qaeda “network” was based largely on accounts provided by just two
sources: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh.

While both
were said to be key leaders in the 9-11 plot—with Mohammed often described as
Al-Qaeda’s “operations chief”—or variations thereof—that’s about all that can
be firmly said about either individual and the stories that they’ve told.

The truth
is that—as even TheNew York Times pointed out in a quite
circumspect yet still revealing story on June 17 2004: “Their accounts have
stirred an unresolved debate about their credibility,” and “much of the
information cited in the reports as fact is actually uncorroborated or nearly
impossible to confirm.”

So even
though the Times itself and every
other major newspaper and magazine in America—not to mention hundreds of small
town dailies—earnestly reprinted excerpts from the 9-11 report, along with extensive
stories rehashing what appeared in the report, the Times’ candid characterizations went largely unnoticed.

In fact, as
far as American Free Press could
determine at that time, AFP was the only publication thus far to have
referenced these remarkable revelations, with the exception of several Internet
sources that republished the original Times
story.

The truth
is that there were multiple concerns regarding the reliability of the sources.
First of all, the Times noted,
questions have been raised as to whether Mohammed or al-Shibh was tortured or
threatened with torture prior to or during their questioning.

But that
actually proves to be only a minor consideration in the minds of many upper
echelon intelligence analysts who have doubts about the 9-11 report. The Times pointed out:

Not all counterterrorism officials believe, for
example, that Osama bin Laden exercised the kind of command over the Sept. 11
operation that is described in the report.

. . . In part, the officials said, they suspect
that the captured Qaeda figures have a strong desire to play down their own
roles and have been willing to make it appear that Mr. bin Laden was the
dominant figure in an effort to enhance his stature.

Investigators conducted a vast analysis of
communications, including cellphone, Internet and courier traffic between the Sept.
11 plotters and their confederates, like Mr. Mohammed, the officials said.

That analysis failed to show a close link
between them in the months before the attacks and virtually no communication with
Mr. bin Laden, a finding that contradicts [the 9-11 report].

And the
truth is that, despite all of the media hoopla about bin Laden’s wide-ranging
Al-Qaeda network, as far back as Nov. 5, 2001 The Washington Post itself reported that European investigators
believed that the group alleged to have carried off the Sept. 11 attacks was
“tightly insulated” and “had little if any contact with other Al-Qaeda terror
cells in Europe.” According to the Post,
investigators found that hijackers were “elite, insulated,” and that the
question remained, according to one French terrorism expert, Roland Jacquard,
as to who was in control: “Who gives the order?” asked Jacquard.

Suggesting
that Muhammad Atta was the ringleader, Jacquard said Atta “probably” gave the
order. However, Jacquard noted, “But Atta also received instructions. And there
is someone between Atta and the mountain” [in Afghanistan where bin Laden was
said to have made his lair].” The Post
didn’t make the suggestion that perhaps this “elite, insulated” group—which
didn’t seem to have any contact with the rest of the Al-Qaeda network—may have
been under the actual and direct control of agents of Israel’s Mossad.

These kinds
of details raised serious questions about the reliability of the official 9-11
report in and of itself.

In fact, after
the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed—who became the primary “source” for the
9-11 commission report—the major media was rife with continuing scare stories
surrounding “new revelations” about a variety of “terrorist plots.” The primary
source of these stories ostensibly came from official U.S. interrogations of Mohammed.

At one
point, Mohammed is reported to have claimed the Sears Tower in Chicago and the
Library Tower in Los Angeles were also targets but the attacks on those
structures—allegedly planned as an immediate follow-up to the terrorism of
9-11—were sidetracked because of George W. Bush’s thorough and immediate
response to the 9-11 attacks.

While some
might suggest that this kind of story actually plays into the Bush
administration’s bid to portray itself as a forceful leader in the “war against
terrorism,” Mohammed’s claim also has the perhaps unintended effect of
providing fuel to the fire of belief that Israeli operatives were indeed
involved in—or had foreknowledge of—the 9-11 attacks and of the impending
attack on the Sears Tower.

Although
the story was brushed under the rug in the wake of the 9-11 tragedies, American Free Press readers will recall
that as early as Dec. 24, 2001 AFP reported that:

On Oct. 17,
the Pulitzer Prize-winning Pottstown (Pennsylvania) Mercury published a story noting that “two men whom police described
as Middle Eastern” were detained in in the Pottstown area (which is just
northwest of Philadelphia) after being found with “detailed video footage of
the Sears Tower in Chicago”—the tallest building in the world, widely mentioned
as a possible terrorist target.

The Mercury did not identify the men’s
nationality, but their names were Moshe Elmakias and Ron Katar. “Moshe” is a
Hebrew name which is not likely to have been bestowed on a Muslim or an Arab. A
woman named Ayelet Reisler, in their company, was also detained. She had a German
passport in her name and medication in a different name.

The two men
worked for a company known as “Moving Systems Incorporated.” And, as we’ve
seen, Israeli-connected moving companies seemed to proliferate in the events
surround the 9-11 tragedies, although most of the published accounts of the
strange activities of the Israeli-owned moving companies focused on events
surrounding the FBI’s seizure of what appears to be several groups of Israeli
operatives in the New York-New Jersey area, one of which just happened to be videotaping
the WTC towers as they collapsed.

Supporters
of Israel protested that it was “just a coincidence” that several different
suspiciously-acting groups of Israelis would be working for moving companies
and have detailed videos of the WTC disaster and the Sears Tower, another
potential terrorist target.

However,
now that the purported Al-Qaeda chief of operations, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed,
had claimed that the Sears Tower was supposedly one of Al-Qaeda’s targets, the
bizarre incident involving Israeli “moving company” workers in Pennsylvania
with tapes of the Sears Tower in Chicago had new meaning.

The
evidence, taken together, does indeed suggest that Israeli intelligence did
indeed have “hands on” knowledge—at the very least—of the intentions of the
terrorists who struck on American soil.

Although
most “independent” 9-11 researchers fell back on the theory that Khalid Shaikh
Mohammed’s claims about 9-11 were the consequence of having been tortured and
made to say what he was reported

to have
said or, as some have contended, that the Mohammed in custody wasn’t, in fact,
“the real” Mohammed, these theories very much pale behind the little-noticed
and much bigger picture that so many 9-11 conspiracy theorists—the
9-11“truthers”—have missed (or otherwise deliberately ignored).

The fact is
that an assembly of very real evidence suggests that Mohammed was a longtime
covert Israeli intelligence asset operating inside Al-Qaeda and Islamic
fundamentalist circles and that the stories he provided (ostensibly “under
torture”) to the 9-11 commission were carefully-crafted “black propaganda” designed
to paint Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as the official “false flag” in the 9-11
attacks.

All of this
suspicion surrounding Mohammed goes back even to the first attack on the World
Trade Center in 1993.

Do not forget—and this is critical to recall:

It was
Mohammed’s nephew (and longtime collaborator) Ramzi Yousef who was alleged to
be the “brains” behind that terror bombing, and whom pro-Israel propagandists
have also since claimed was “linked” to the bombing of the Murrah Building in
Oklahoma City in 1995.

We first
met Yousef in Chapter Eighteen where we noted that when a young Palestinian
named Ahmad Ajaj was arrested at Kennedy Airport in New York in 1992 (on
passport charges) and then later indicted and convicted (after the first World
Trade Center attack) with having been a conspirator in that crime, Yousef was
Ajaj’s traveling companion at the time of his arrest.

But the
significance of this, of course, is the fact that—as we have seen—the late
investigative journalist Robert I. Friedman reported that Yousef’s associate Ajaj,
appeared to have been recruited as a Mossad asset and deployed as an
infiltrator in Islamic fundamentalist circles.

In
addition, as we have seen, there were other telling Israeli “links” to the
strange circumstances surrounding both the instigation (and cover-up) of the first
trade center bombing.

The bottom
line is that, looking more closely at Yousef and his uncle, Khalid Shaikh
Mohammed—the ostensible “mastermind” of 9-11, purportedly working on behalf of
Osama bin Laden—we cannot help but conclude that these two key figures in this
seeming “first family of terrorism” are the key to understanding that Israel’s
Mossad did have a behind-the-scenes role in manipulating what we know as
Al-Qaeda and what part (or parts) some of its lower-level operatives played in
9-11.

Going back
to the first attack on the World Trade Center, there were, in fact, already
suspicions among many Islamic elements that there was much more to Ramzi Yousef
than would meet the eye.

First of
all, for years, there have been questions as to Ramzi Yousef’s actual ethnic or
cultural background, not to mention his very identity.

He has
variously been described (or otherwise described himself) as an “Iraqi” or as a
Kuwaiti national or as a Baluchi, from Pakistan.

At the time
Yousef was claiming to be an Iraqi, during his period operating in New York, prior
to the first World Trade Center attack, there were many individuals of Arabic
heritage who doubted it.

However,
for those who were eager to link Saddam Hussein and Iraq to both attacks on the
World Trade Center and, as some continue to do today, to the Oklahoma City
bombing, Yousef’s claim of Iraqi heritage has been quite convenient indeed, no
matter what the truth.

Even John
Miller and Michael Stone and Chris Mitchell, writing in a semi-official 9-11 account,
entitled The Cell: Inside the 9/11 Plot,
and Why the FBI and CIA Failed to Stop It, described Yousef as “a shadowy figure
whose background is still veiled in myth and controversy.”

In the end,
according to an investigative report by Emily Fancher, of Columbia University’s
Graduate School of Journalism: “Yousef’s identity was never settled in court.”
So the truth is that not even the United States government has actually—at
least officially—determined if Yousef really is even an Arab or a Muslim.

What makes
this little-reported anomaly so interesting is that, as we noted in some detail
in Chapter Twenty-Three, there is a long history of Israel utilizing “mista’arvim”—Jews
posing as Arabs—as part of its intelligence operations. So a very real question
remains: Are the individuals known as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef
really who they say they are and are they really Arabs or Muslims at all?

And if the
uncle-and-nephew team really are Arabs and/or Muslims, the fact the nephew, Yousef,
was working closely with a reported Israeli intelligence asset in the first WTC
attack is still noteworthy indeed, particularly since the Israeli asset in
question was himself an Arab.

And it’s
probably no coincidence, considering everything, that when Ramzi Yousef was
finally taken into custody for his reported role in the first trade center
attack, according to US Secret Service agent Brian Parr, “[Yousef] was
friendly, he seemed relaxed and he actually seemed eager to talk to us.”

That’s
precisely what one might expect from an Israeli agent, doing his job, spreading
the Al-Qaeda legend for the benefit of his Israeli sponsors.

It also
likewise reflects the seemingly quite forthcoming nature of the “revelations”
that are reported to have emerged from Yousef’s uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed,
in laying out, for the 9-11 commission, the Israeli “false flag” implicating
Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda as the driving force behind the events of
September 11, 2001.

Of the
actual trial of the conspirators in the first trade center bombing, the
aforementioned Emily Fancher of Columbia University reported that Robert
Precht, one of the defense lawyers, said that “We felt that there were unseen
actors behind this. Neither defense lawyers or government knew who it
was”—certainly a cryptic suggestion that there was indeed much more to the
story above and beyond the concept that the trade center attack was simply the
product of an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist conspiracy.

And it’s
probably worth noting that, during that trial, the law firm that represented
the Palestinian, Ahmad Ajaj—the reputed Mossad asset inside the bombing
conspiracy—on a pro bono (that is, for free) basis was Willkie, Farr and Gallagher, the “blue ribbon” Wall Street firm which included among its partners
no less than Kenneth Bialkin, a longtime national chairman of the
Anti-Defamation League, the American propaganda and intelligence conduit for
Israel’s Mossad.

Of that
trial, R. T. Naylor—a professor of economics at McGill University in Montreal,
an authority and consultant on financial fraud and author of Satanic Purses: Money, Myth, and
Misinformation in the War on Terror—noted that:

The FBI labwork implicating the defendants was
revealed to be faked, and the case against the man who rented the truck was so full
of inconsistencies that it might well have failed—but for two things. The
prosecution successfully played on the sentiments of the jury, and the defense
tried to rely on contradictions in the prosecution case rather than presenting
a proper rebuttal.

And it’s
worth recalling—as noted in Chapter Eighteen—that an Israeli woman (whom
federal authorities refused to confirm or deny had ties to Israeli
intelligence) was deeply involved with the individual who had rented the truck
used in the trade center bombing in 1993.

Of Ramzi
Yousef, the aforementioned Miller, Stone & Mitchell have noted some of the
mystery surrounding how Yousef came to become involved with the Islamic
fundamentalist group in New York that ultimately came to be implicated in the
first trade center attack, saying that “There may always be a debate about Yousef’s
intended purpose, but the more pressing question is: Who sent him?” [Emphasis added.]

These
authors also noted that Yousef’s involvement in the first trade center attack
had some significant consequences for what they referred to as the “ragtag
battalion.” Whoever bore responsibility, they said, for Yousef’s coming to the
United States, Yousef’s effect was “indisputable.”

According
to the authors:

For one thing, [Yousef] helped professionalize
the largely inept, undisciplined soldiers. For another, he radically changed the
scale of their mission. Before Yousef’s arrival, even the Twelve Jewish
Locations plot was based on classic terrorist strategy; a series of small,
local explosions whose primary objective was to terrify, not kill or maim.

Yousef had much bigger plans—to build a bomb
powerful enough to topple the World Trade Towers, one into the other, with a
potential death toll in the tens of thousands—many levels of magnitude beyond
anything the others had previously imagined.

In fact, to
the extent that this previously “ragtag” group did have terrorist plans, they
had evidently decided to focus on twelve key Jewish targets in the New York
City area.

Yousef—you
see—changed that and shifted the focus away from specifically Jewish targets to
a much more broad-ranging target: the World Trade Center. And this, it should
be noted, is akin to the way famed “Arab terrorist” Abu Nidal—another
mysterious figure—focused on other Arab targets but seldom, if ever, aimed at
Jewish or Israel targets.

As far as
the role of Yousef’s uncle, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, in the 9-11 attacks,
Miller, Stone & Mitchell say Mohammed “seems to have been responsible at
least for arranging the operation’s secret funding, though some investigators
have come to believe that Mohammed masterminded the attacks himself.”

In short,
that while Mohammed did have some role in facilitating the attacks—specifically
in the realm of raising funds—it is otherwise not absolutely certain that he
was the ultimate mastermind as “some investigators” had concluded.

Meanwhile,
the aforementioned R.T. Naylor of McGill University—reflecting on what precise
relationship Mohammed, in fact, had with Osama bin Laden, public perception to
the contrary—referred to Mohammed’s alleged role in another purported terror
operation (never carried out) known as “the Bojinka Plot,” which is said to
have involved the crashing of airliners. Assessing one account of Bojinka, Naylor
wrote:

[Bojinka] became an Al-Qaeda operation in
retrospect not because it was planned by bin Laden but because the man into whose
bank account some money allegedly for the plot had been placed was a
brother-in-law of Osama’s brother-in-law.

More
pointedly, in reference to Mohammed’s purported role in orchestrating 9-11
(presumably on bin Laden’s behalf), Naylor noted a March 2, 2003 profile of
Mohammed that appeared in The Observer and commented:

Assuming the events portrayed are roughly
accurate, what emerges is that [Mohammed] ran his own operations and
occasionally crossed paths with bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri but that there
was no “merger” of their terror capacities into a corporate whole to justify
the management hierarchy notion.

In other
words, Mohammed was neither the direct underling—or under the supervision or
even necessarily working at the behest—of Osama bin Laden. What role Mohammed
played in 9-11 was solely of his own making and the perception that bin Laden
was ultimately behind Mohammed’s ventures was simply just that: a perception.
But it was a perception that the 9-11 commission (and the mass media) were
eager to portray to the American people and the world.

However,
neither the 9-11 commission nor the mass media were ever eager to explore the
multiple connections, strange circumstances and anomalous bits of evidence
linking Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef to the operations of Israel's Mossad over a
very long period of time.

The truth
is that there is much more to the Al-Qaeda network than meets the eye, and
considering the power of the Israeli lobby in official Washington, it is no
wonder that even the highest-ranking U.S. law enforcement officials would be
loathed to pry too deeply into the covert Israeli connections of the Al-Qaeda
figures who seem to be ubiquitous players in the various acts of terrorism that
have rocked America in recent years. But these details are here for the
historical record.

In a
special report in the Oct/Nov. 1997 issue of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Richard H. Curtiss, a
respected former U.S. diplomatic officer, pointed out that, in a number of
notable cases of what appeared to be “Arab terrorism,” the individuals involved
seemed to have covert ties to Israeli intelligence.

Curtiss
cited former Mossad operative Victor Ostrovsky who noted that, in fact, Israeli
intelligence did indeed have a hand in manipulating Arab terrorist cells, and
that “usually Arabs who were carrying out Israeli plans had no idea where the
plans really originated.”

And as far
as terrorist operations against Americans by Israelis—disguised as “Arab”
plots—Ostrovsky commented, “The point of all these Israeli operations is to
convince Americans that they’re in the same boat as Israel [fighting Arab
terrorism].”

However,
the Mohammed-Yousef affair isn’t the end of it. It seems that “family
connections” to 9-11 (and to Israel’s role therein) just won’t go away when it
comes to the possibility that Arabs—working for Israel’s Mossad—might have
played a role in that tragedy.

Buried in a
New York Times story on Feb. 19, 2009
was the eye-opening revelation that a Lebanese Muslim Arab who had been taken into
custody by Lebanon—which accused him of being a spy for some 25 years for
Israeli intelligence—just happened to be a cousin of one of the Muslims alleged
to have been one of the 9-11 hijackers.

Although
Ali al-Jarrah was—publicly—an outspoken proponent of the Palestinian cause, it
turned out that he was actually working as a paid asset of the Mossad for more
than two decades, betraying his own nation and conducting spying operations
against Palestinian groups and the pro-Palestinian party Hezbollah. Reporting
on the al-Jarrah affair, The New York
Times revealed this:

It is not the family’s first brush with
notoriety. One of Mr. Jarrah’s cousins, Ziad al-Jarrah, was among the 19
hijackers who carried out the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The Times added that the men were 20 years
apart in age and “do not appear to have known each other well.

However,
the gratuitous Times suggestion that
the two cousins “do not appear to have known each other well” is intriguing,
inasmuch as it is an admission that they did, in fact, know one another.

And that
could be very telling, for there are those who have suggested that the older
cousin may indeed have recruited his younger cousin (alleged to have been one
of the 9-11 hijackers) as an asset (even an unknowing one) for Israeli
intelligence.

The
circumspect stance taken by the Times
is no surprise, considering the fact that the Times was quite aware that there have been many sources which have
alleged that the 9-11 conspiracy was infiltrated, if not controlled outright,
by Israeli intelligence from the beginning.

If the
younger al-Jarrah was an Israeli asset inside the 9-11 conspiracy, this would
not be (as we have seen) the first time a Muslim Arab was involved, acting as a
Mossad agent, in an attack on the World Trade Center. And the truth is that
if—out of the archives of many different intelligence agencies—we could glean
more about the purported participants in the 9-11 conspiracy, we would find, most
assuredly, that the strange tale of the al-Jarrah family and that of Khalid
Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi Yousef are really only just the tip of the iceberg
relating to the Mossad’s tentacles inside Islamic fundamentalist circles linked
to 9-11.

While some
9-11 “truthers” seem to be convinced that there were absolutely no Muslim
fundamentalists involved (even at least indirectly) in orchestrating the 9-11
attacks—that it was all plotted by the Illuminati or the Bush family and the
military-industrial complex and then carried out by the CIA or some combine of
other government agencies—this is, of course, sheer fantasy.

And it
flies in the face of what we do know about the manner in which Israel has not
only manipulated very real (call them “sincere’) Islamic hard-liners, but also
of what we know of Israel’s deployment of Jews (masquerading as Arabs or
Muslims) into Muslim and Arab organizations (terrorist and otherwise) and
utilizing genuine Arabs—who’ve turned traitor—as assets inside those networks.

And that
having been said, it appears—based on all that we have examined here, thus far,
in these pages—Israel’s Mossad did indeed engage in some behind-the-scenes
trickery used to manipulate Islamic fundamentalist elements—before and on
9-11—in order to achieve what it hoped to accomplish on 9-11 and did:

The 9-11
tragedy pushed America and its people onto a new path, in direct confrontation
with the entire Islamic world. Once again, it was “Onward Christian Soldiers.”
American men and women in uniform were deployed in what was really and simply
and only but another war for Israel’s survival, this one cleverly dubbed “the War
on Terror.”

The New American
National Enemy—really an enemy of the entire world if truth be told—was never
so vague as the old Communist bogeyman. (What was Communism anyway?)

This time
the New American National Enemy’s image and motivation was unquestionably
clear. He had a face: the hook-nosed Arab wrapped in desert garb. An agenda:
world conquest. A holy book: the Koran. And a prophet named Muhammed who
followed a mysterious God named Allah, said to be “different” from the “good”
God worshiped by Christians and their Jewish brethren alike.

This enemy
hated Americans and God’s Chosen People and anything decent, determined to wipe
Christianity and Israel and democracy and all nice things off the map and set
up a worldwide Islamic dictatorship where good Christian girls would be sex
slaves.

But
Israel’s successful path to 9-11—by way of deception, if you will—was made
possible because of the fact Israel (as we have seen) had a long and
proven-quite-successful history of utilizing false flags (even on American
soil) to achieve its ends.

In the
chapter which follows, we’ll demonstrate how Arab false flags were utilized in
Israel’s historic template for terror that had already been tested in the JFK
assassination and the Oklahoma City bombing.

CHAPTER TWENTY-SIX:

Onward Christian
Soldiers!

What Really Happened
on 9-11:

Israel’s Most
Spectacular False Flag Triumph

A pivotal aspect of Israel’s method
of operation in utilizing “false flags”—as demonstrated in the JFK
assassination and the Oklahoma City bombing—was the careful attachment (call it
an “overlay”) of Israel’s conspiratorial aims onto the framework of existing
political, military, intelligence and other structures of social interaction
already in place in the United States, those elements necessary for not only
implementing Israel’s criminal terrorist agenda, but also (obviously) to
ultimately shift the blame for the crimes elsewhere.

And that is
precisely what Israel’s “template for terror” has been all about: Israel has
mustered its own considerable resources—finance, media power, wide-ranging
covert capabilities—and then set them in place to manipulate ongoing events and
operations being conducted quite independently by otherwise loyal Americans and
direct those activities toward fulfilling Israel’s agenda.

This is
precisely what happened on 9-11. Israel’s manipulation and deployment of “bin
Laden Arabs” (as false flags) was carried out in a template for terror that
used as its foundation the very American national security and defense
structure that was designed to prevent the very type of attacks that took place
on September 11, 2001.

And that,
it might be said, was the unnatural “beauty”—the genius—of what Israel did that
day. We have to give credit where credit is due.

Throughout
their history—going back to the days of the Old Testament—the Jewish people
have shown a mad brilliance when dealing with their foes, both real and
perceived. And 9-11 may well be their masterwork. (And let it be their last.)

Now since
9-11 there has been—as in the JFK assassination and the Oklahoma City bombing—a
wide array of questions that have been raised about the specific events
surrounding the actual events of what took place on 9-11. Untold numbers of
books, Internet websites, monographs, videos and other media have gone to great
lengths to prove (and, I think, adequately document beyond question) that the
9-11 story told by the U.S. government and its friends in Israel and in the
Jewish-controlled mass media in the West is a pack of lies.

Many of
these efforts deserve great credit for their accomplishments. Others are
confusing and often internally contradictory, sometimes ill-thought-out
slap-dash productions that are sometimes almost unintentionally comic in
nature. Likewise, many of these books and other materials often contain very
valuable data that is otherwise interspersed with disinformation and
misinformation. How much of that combination is deliberate or simply mistaken
is anyone’s guess.

And then,
of course, there are those 9-11 truthers who just simply avoid mentioning the
possibility of Israeli involvement at all. Notable among them is Professor
David Ray Griffin of Claremont University whose work on 9-11 is, otherwise,
quite lucid and instructive.

Former
senior CIA official Bill Christison said that Professor Griffin’s book, Debunking 9-11 Debunking, was “a superb
compendium of the strong body of evidence showing the official U.S. government
story of what happened on September 11, 2001 to be almost certainly a monstrous
series of lies.”

And that
pretty much sums up the official version of 9-11 itself: a monstrous series of
lies. Only a person with a naive faith in “our government” would accept the
lies of 9-11. And if truth be told, multiple polls taken over an extended
period of time indicate that many Americans have serious doubts about what
really happened that day—and why. But the thesis that Israel was the key player
behind 9-11 has not yet fully seeped into the American awareness—and we
certainly understand what that happens to be the case.

But people
do understand that a wide variety of evidence come from notably disparate
sources—including unchallenged experts in the respective fields—indicates,
among other things:

•That the alleged 9-11 hijackers (whose actual
identities still remain in doubt) had neither the skill to carry out some of
the aerobatic maneuvers demonstrated that day and that, even further, it seems
as if the planes themselves were taken over—from elsewhere—by remote control and,
by this means, were made to hit their targets on 9-11.

• That the official rendition of how the World
Trade Center towers collapsed is clearly untenable—scientifically impossible.
There were clearly bombs or other explosives inside the ill-fated landmark
towers and the popular perception that the collapse of the structures was
reminiscent of a controlled demolition correctly reflected, in fact, what did happen
to those buildings.

•That United Flight 93—the plane lost over
Pennsylvania—was not brought down by a struggle between heroic passengers and
the hijackers but was, instead, shot down by the U.S. military.

• That it was not American Flight 77 which
struck the Pentagon on 9-11, but that some other unidentified flying object
(generally assumed by 9-11 skeptics to have been a missile) was, in fact, the
cause of the damage to America’s military command center in Washington.

Naturally,
all of these specific matters are—and have been—open to relentless debate.

As many
readers may (or may not) know, there are even some 9-11 skeptics who make the
serious claim that there were “no hijackers” involved in the events of that
day.

Others
claim that there not even any actual planes involved (even in the events at the
World Trade Center).

And yet
others claim that nuclear bombs brought down the trade towers, while others
insist the towers were crippled and destroyed by powerful particle beam weapons
which seem right out of science fiction but which are a reality.

In the end,
however—and note this carefully:

None of this ultimately counts in understanding the actual
and specific manner in which Israel utilized its tried-and-true false flag
tactic, its proven template for terror, in carrying off the 9-11 tragedy.

While all
of these debates about how the trade towers were brought down—and whether
Building 7 was imploded, for example—are fascinating and provide 9-11 truthers
a lot of interesting discussion (and entertaining reading for those interested
in the topic of conspiracy theories) they
are debates that distract from the big picture.

And that
big picture is that, in the end, Israel was the mastermind behind 9-11, the
tragedy that laid the path for the War on Terror—the latest in so many Jewish
wars of survival that have plagued mankind throughout history. And even today,
the consequences of 9-11 still place America (and the world) on the precipice
of global disaster.

It will be
a bitter pill to swallow for those who delight in inspecting and micro-analyzing
and pursuing to the end the questions of whether or not a plane or a drone or a
missile hit the Pentagon or what super-secret scientific process was used to
topple the trade towers, but (in the context of the events of 9-11) we cannot
help recall what Vincent Salandria and Richard Sprague said in reference to the
JFK assassination, remarks we cited at the very outset of this volume; to wit:

Salandria
said:

While the [JFK assassination] researchers have
involved themselves in consuming preoccupation with the micro-analytic searching
for facts of how the assassination was accomplished, there has been almost no
systematic thinking on why President Kennedy was killed.

And Sprague
said:

As incredible as it may seem . . . the identities
of the actual Dealey Plaza team, including shooters, radio communications men,
coordinators, and others, do not really matter in the overall conspiracy and
especially in the cover-ups. The murder was a carefully orchestrated
intelligence operation . . . .

Lee Harvey Oswald did not fire any shots that
day. Once one moves beyond the stage of thinking that Oswald did the shooting,
the questions about who was shooting become secondary to the questions about
who planned and commanded the execution and why they did so. [Sprague’s
emphasis.]

The bottom
line of the Kennedy assassination was the JFK was killed. That was the intent
of the plotters. The bottom line of the Oklahoma bombing was the destruction of
the Murrah Building. And the bottom line of 9-11 was mass murder on a grand
scale in multiple cities.

In each of
these instances, Israel stood to benefit. It didn’t matter what means were
used, how many assassins or hijackers or bombers were deployed. It didn’t make
any difference, ultimately, in achieving Israel’s final goal of shaping
American policy for its own ends.

That is why
the relentless debate over the specific forensics of 9-11 is a needless and
distracting enterprise.

We KNOW
that the official version of 9-11 is a lie and for those who aren’t afraid of
facing it (or saying it) we KNOW that Israel was the prime player behind the
9-11 tragedy.

We KNOW
that Israel used bin Laden and fundamentalist Muslims as the false flags in
9-11.

And we KNOW
that Israel had a very specific template for terror in place when they carried
off 9-11.

And this is
what it was . . .

In the JFK assassination, Israel
either set up a “dummy assassination attempt” against JFK and made it into “the
real thing” or otherwise manipulated an already existing such operation (put in
place by elements in the CIA) and utilized it for its own ends.

To say
precisely what happened would be speculative, but we know the basic parameters.

In the
Oklahoma bombing, a similar template was utilized.

There, it
seems, some sort of surveillance-and-sting operation aimed at domestic American
“right wing” dissidents—whether militia or white separatists or a combination
thereof—was either set up or otherwise coopted and made into a full-fledged
bombing that resulted in mass destruction.

Again, to
say precisely what happened would be speculative, but we know the basic
parameters.

In both
instances, chosen patsies were already in place and there were also people and
circles within various intelligence agencies that were either outright
traitors, working on behalf of Israel, or who were otherwise unwittingly
manipulated in order to carry out the various processes that facilitated these
crimes.

In the case
of 9-11, Israel “piggybacked” atop ongoing U.S. national defense systems
designed to simulate and respond to air attacks and even including—the evidence
now indicates—attacks on American landmarks and installations conducted by
suicide aircraft.

Meanwhile,
of course, Arab Islamic fundamentalist patsies—perhaps even directed or
actually even led by Israeli Jews posing as Arabs (the mysterious “mista’arvim”
described earlier)—were acting out their role as the 9-11 hijackers.

Their “hijacking”
operation had been set in motion not by bin Laden but by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed
who—the evidence suggests—was a longtime Israeli asset inside the Islamic
fundamentalist movement.

The
Israelis knew that, on 9-11, the United States defense apparatus was engaged in
these training exercises and saw this as a perfect opportunity to spring the
9-11 trap on the American people. They knew that the American defense apparatus
would be caught unaware and that unusual activity among a number of aircraft on
the East Coast would, at least initially, be perceived to be part of the
exercise.

Noting that
U.S. air defenses were effectively paralyzed for an hour and forty-five minutes
on 9-11—in comparison with an average intercept time of 15-20 minutes at most
both before and after 9-11—one 9-11 researcher, Webster Griffin Tarpley, has
summarized the matter:

Recent progress in 9-11 research has focused on
the role of war games, military exercises, and terror drills in hiding and facilitating
the terror actions of 9-11. So far we know of 14 separate exercises on or
related to 9-11. Some were used to suppress air defenses by moving fighter
planes to northern Canada and Alaska, far from the 9-11 targets. Others
paralyzed air defense by inserting false radar blips onto the radar screens of defense
personnel, and with commercial and military aircraft which reported themselves
as hijacked.

Tarpley—among
others—has concluded that rogue American military officers in NORAD and a
number of civilian intriguers inside the Federal Aviation Administration were
undoubtedly cognizant of the bigger conspiracy. But it should be noted, for the
record, that Tarpley does not point the finger so directly at Israel as we do
here.

Kristen
Breitweiser, one of the more prominent and perceptive of the widely-publicized
9-11 widows made this critical point, appearing on Phil Donahue’s television
show:

I don’t understand how a plane could hit our
Defense Department . . . an hour after the first plane hit the first tower. I don’t
understand how that is possible. I’m a reasonable person.

But when you look at the fact that we spend half
a trillion dollars on national defense and you’re telling me that a plane is able
to hit our Pentagon . . . an hour after the first tower is hit?

There are procedures and protocols in place in
this nation that are to be followed . . . and they were not followed on September
11.

All of this
happened not because a small group of Islamic fundamentalists (who obviously
had no access to high-level inside knowledge of American defense operations)
were able to somehow break through a sudden lapse in the security apparatus,
but, instead, because Israel’s intelligence service (with its wide-ranging
contacts—and spies—inside the American defense establishment) were able to
glean this data.

In his 2004
book, A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and
the Abuse of America’s Intelligence Agencies, James Bamford described the
set-up of the pivotal North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) and the
relevant security exercises in place in these brief terms:

September 11, 2001 was the fourth day of a
week-long exercise code-named “Vigilant Guardian.” It was designed to create a
fictional crisis affecting the United States and text the network of radar
watch stations around the country. Like a rerun of an old movie, the scenario
involved Russian bombers flying over the North Police in attack formation.

[Radar specialists in NORAD’s Rome, New
York-based Operations Command Center of “Huntress Control”—the Air National
Guard’s Northeast Air Defense Sector] were responsible for monitoring more than
half a million square miles of airspace, from the Montana-North Dakota border
to the coast of Maine down through South Carolina. Included were the skies over
New York City and Washington, D.C.

Should a crisis develop, the radar specialists
could pick up a phone and alert fighter pilots at National Guard units at Burlington,
Vermont; Atlantic City, New Jersey, Cape Cod Massachusetts; and Duluth, Minnesota.

In
addition, aside from these NORAD exercises, a similar National Reconnaissance
Office drill was being conducted on September 11, in the Department of
Defense/National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) which is in charge of spy
satellites. The NRO exercise was scheduled to simulate the crash of a small
aircraft into one of the agency’s headquarters towers and test the response of
employees thereto.

While no
actual plane was to be involved in the exercise, an NRO officer said (after
9-11) that: "It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to
involve an aircraft crashing into our facility. As soon as the real world
events began, we canceled the exercise.” So while it may indeed have appeared
to be a “coincidence” to the unknowing, it was a coincidence intended by
America’s “ally,” Israel.

And as far
as NORAD’s response, in dealing with its own specific exercise in place, the
aforementioned Bamford revealed that—initially—Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins (the
airborne control and warning officer on duty at the Rome center) thought that
the first report of a possible hijacking was “part of the exercise.” Her
reaction was in response to the first report of a hijacked plane coming from a
Boston military liaison with the Federal Aviation Administration who urged
NORAD be notified.

Major
General Larry Arnold commander of the Continental United States NORAD Region,
testified before the 9-11 Commission:

[We] were in the middle of a NORAD exercise at
that particular time. Which means, that basically our entire staff was focused
on being able to do the air operations center mission, which was our job to do.

We had just come out of a video teleconference
with the NORAD staff and with our folks at that particular time when I was
handed note that we had a possible hijacking in Boston Center. . . . I
immediately went downstairs and picked up the phone, asking on the way to my
staff, is this part of the exercise? Because quite honestly and frankly, we do
do hijacking scenarios as we go through these exercises from time-to-time.

But I realized that it was not – that this was
real-life.

Northeast
Air Defense Sector (NEADS), Mission Crew Commander (MCC) Major Kevin Nasypany
told Vanity Fair: "When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction
was 'Somebody started the exercise early. . . . I actually said out loud, 'The
hijack's not supposed to be for another hour.'"

But the
hijackings were “for real” and Israel had expertly manipulated the American
defense apparatus from within to facilitate them.

Meanwhile,
on the public stage, so to speak, the hijackers—including perhaps a few Israeli
mista’arvim (Jews posing as Arabs) willing to sacrifice themselves for the
greater good—were playing their roles.

However, it
is entirely possible—even likely—that some of the hijackers had no idea that
they were not engaging in a conventional hijacking and that their planes would
actually be crashed into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center and other
landmarks.

And in that
regard, there is a wide body of opinion—and scientific reality to verify the
possibility—that it is likely that the internal flying mechanisms of at least
some of the 9-11 airliners were commandeered via remote control (from the
ground) and steered toward disaster and that the hijackers on the planes had no
means to stop it.

That is,
while those hijackers may have believed that they were going to land the planes
at some location and then presumably make demands upon the American
government—a typical scenario in a conventional hijacking—they had no idea that
the planes, in fact, would be taken over by remote control from elsewhere and
caused to crash.

We can’t
pretend to know the motivations of each and every one of the individuals who
were on those planes in the role of “hijacker,” and nor do we even really know
who they were in the first place, the official version of events
notwithstanding.

And in this
regard, it should be noted for the record, that there is yet another odd twist
to the matter of the hijackers: the strong likelihood that at least a number of
the alleged hijackers had actually received training (including flight
training) on American military bases.

This little
known point has been made by a wide variety of sources, even including elements
in the mainstream media and yes—although many are loathe to mention it—this
matter also involves both Israel and simulation exercises involving hijackings.
(Akin again to the “dummy assassination” in Dallas and the “sting-gone-wrong”
in Oklahoma City).

In perhaps
his only passing reference to a role by Israel in 9-11, Michael Ruppert
asserted in his book Crossing the Rubicon:

. . .The so-called hijackers who had received
this training were probably part of an ultra-secret U.S. military and intelligence
joint operation “Opposition Force,” or OPFOR, which routinely played bad guys
in hijack exercises around the world and inside the U.S. . . . It is
possible—even likely—that this hijack OPFOR was a joint U.S-Israeli operation.
Sources [told Ruppert] that exercises like this were also probably used by U.S.
and Israeli intelligence agencies to test airline security around the world and
especially in the Middle East.

Ruppert
pointed out that over many years he had met multiple former U.S. Special
operations personnel “who performed these kinds of missions,” which, he said,
included “driving a pick truck or a fake utility truck to test defenses at
nuclear reactors, or posing as small boaters attempting to penetrate the
security at submarine bases.”

So what
role at least some of the alleged hijackers were playing (or thought they were
playing) on 9-11 is anyone’s guess.

Did some of
them actually believe that they were actually working on behalf of a joint U.S.-Israeli
hijacking exercise, only to find out that they were, in the end, slated to be
patsies?

We can only
imagine how some of them might have reacted when they realized—as many have
suggested—that the planes they hijacked had actually been taken over by remote
control and then delivered to a fiery crash into the trade towers.

And, again,
for the record, all we know is the purported identities of those accused of
having been involved in the events of 9-11, although we also know that some of
those people are very much still alive.

And the
very fact that some of these purported hijackers—whom we are now led to believe
had multiple connections to “terrorism”—made it onto the planes in the first
place is probably no coincidence. We know an Israeli company, ICTS, was
providing security at the Boston airport from which two of the 9-11 flights
originated. And either directly or through subsidiaries, ICTS was operating
security at the airports in Washington and Newark where the other 9-11 flights
originated.

One could
easily surmise that the hijackers were thus permitted to gain entry to those
departing aircraft precisely because the Israelis wanted those individuals
aboard those planes. And in light of what did happen on 9-11 we have a pretty
good idea as to why the Israelis wanted those individuals—the false flag
patsies—aboard those planes.

Israel’s
“control” of the 9-11 hijackers can be traced to multiple means, all or some
which could have been utilized to one degree or another (and considering the
fact that there were said to have been nineteen “hijackers” on 9-11, the
options, naturally, can vary.

But what
follows is probably about as precise a summary as possible of the means by
which Israel orchestrated the presence of the purported hijackers onto the aircraft
that became the weapons of 9-11.

Ultimately,
the orders for the 9-11 conspiracy came from Israel. The orders were passed
down and carried out through Israeli assets inside Islamic fundamentalist
circles. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, discussed in some detail earlier, seems the
likely conduit and was indeed the 9-11 “mastermind”—but working for Israel, nor
working for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Whether
Mohammed is actually Jewish is a very real question, but, in the end it doesn’t
really matter, for whatever his ethnic origins the evidence strongly suggests
that Mohammed and his partner-in-crime, his nephew Ramzi Yousef, were longtime
assets of Israeli intelligence.

It has long
been known—among Muslim and Arab communities in The Washington, DC area—that
one of the individuals who was involved in providing false identification
papers for a number of the 9-11 hijackers (when they were in the
Maryland-Virginia area) has been a longtime asset of Israeli intelligence,
despite his Arab background.

So it was
Israeli intelligence that had a direct hand in assisting at least several of
the 9-11 hijackers in the months preceding 9-11, whether or not those purported
hijackers actually knew it or not. Those hijackers, in fact, may well have been
“sincere” Islamic fundamentalists who had been selected (by Israel) to be among
the patsies and, as a consequence, making it possible for them to travel on
9-11 was critical to bringing all of the pieces of Israel’s 9-11 conspiracy
into place.

And it is a
fact that the prosecution of another of the individuals—an American
woman—involved in facilitating the forged papers for those hijackers was
brushed under the rug.

Clearly, it
was determined too much inquiry into the matter might start uncovering things
that the Israelis (and their collaborators in high places in the United States
government) would prefer under wraps.

Some of the
hijackers could very well have been Israeli Jews—the previously-described
mista’arvim—posing as Arabs, knowing that they were on a suicide mission
(although this possibility is least likely).

At any
rate, mista’arvim undoubtedly played a part in manipulating some of the
now-infamous “19 hijackers” into the roles that they ultimately were said to
have played on 9-11, whether any mista’arvim were actually on any of the
ill-fated 9-11 flights or not.

Some of the
hijackers could very well have been—as outlined earlier—Arabs who had been
trained by the United States (and Israel) for participation in hijacking
exercises and participated in the events of 9-11, not knowing what was actually
intended.

The
Israelis could have manipulated these Arabs into involvement in 9-11 even
without the knowledge of the United States defense and intelligence apparatus,
and, at the same time, leading those Arabs to believe that they were, in fact, working
under U.S. government auspices in some sort of hijacking exercise.

And while
my report for American Free Press—speculating
on the likely role of Israeli Jews posing as Arabs being involved in 9-11—first
appeared in 2001, a more detailed exposition of this thesis appeared elsewhere,
a decade later, in early 2011.

The author,
Washington journalist Wayne Madsen—who is as fervent in his opposition to
Nazism as he is in exposing the intrigues of Israel—is no “Nazi sympathizer” by
any means. Madsen reported that he had received details of a Feb. 2002 British
intelligence memorandum (suppressed by then-Prime Minister Tony Blair) which
flat asserted that Israel had, in fact, set up and manipulated the hijackers
involved in 9-11. The relevant portion of Madsen’s report follows:

A Mossad unit consisting of six Egyptian- and
Yemeni-born Jews infiltrated "Al-Qaeda" cells in Hamburg (the
Atta-Mamoun Darkanzali cell), south Florida, and Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates
in the months before 9/11. The Mossad not only infiltrated cells but began to
run them and give them specific orders that would eventually culminate in their
being on board four regularly-scheduled flights originating in Boston, Washington
Dulles, and Newark, New Jersey on 9/11.

The Mossad infiltration team comprised six
Israelis, comprising two cells of three agents, who all received special
training at a Mossad base in the Negev Desert in their future control and
handling of the "Al-Qaeda" cells.

One Mossad cell traveled to Amsterdam where
they submitted to the operational control of the Mossad's Europe Station, which
operates from the El Al complex at Schiphol International Airport. The
three-man Mossad unit then traveled to Hamburg where it made contact with
Mohammed Atta, who believed they were sent by Osama bin Laden. In fact, they
were sent by Ephraim Halevy, the chief of Mossad.

The second three-man Mossad team flew to New York
and then to southern Florida where they began to direct the
"Al-Qaeda" cells operating from Hollywood, Miami, Vero Beach, Delray
Beach, and West Palm Beach.

Israeli "art students," already under
investigation by the Drug Enforcement Administration for casing the offices and
homes of federal law enforcement officers, had been living among and conducting
surveillance of the activities, including flight school training, of the future
Arab "hijacker" cells, particularly in Hollywood and Vero Beach.

In August 2001, the first Mossad team flew with
Atta and other Hamburg "Al-Qaeda" members to Boston. . . .

The two Mossad teams sent regular coded reports
on the progress of the 9/11 operation to Tel Aviv via the Israeli embassy in Washington,
DC.

So what
Madsen claimed—but which has largely been ignored by many in the 9-11 truth
movement—fits all that we know about the method of operation used by Israel,
both in terms of its use of mista’arvim and the infiltration of Islamic
fundamentalist circles and underscores much of what I’ve written in American Free Press and reiterated to a
certain degree in the pages of this volume.

And
although readers of my work might be inclined, as Jewish sources do, to dismiss
me as an “anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist”—an apparently negative appellation
I cheerfully acknowledge for its basic accuracy—such a description is hard to
apply to Wayne Madsen.

As a U.S. Naval
Officer, he managed one of the first computer security programs for the U.S. Navy.
He subsequently worked for the National Security Agency, the Naval Data
Automation Command, the Department of State, RCA Corporation, and Computer
Sciences Corporation—a distinguished resume by any estimation!

Interestingly,
Madsen also contended in that report that Egyptian and Yemeni-born Jewish
Mossad agents had infiltrated the Muslim Brotherhood in the United Arab
Emirates and had helped expedite Israeli funding for activities to be
attributed to Al-Qaeda.

Earlier,
according to Madsen, John O’Neill—who had been the FBI’s chief counter-terrorism
agent investigating Al-Qaeda—had become aware of the Israeli funding mechanisms
and “It was no mistake,” editorialized Madsen, “that O'Neill was given the job
as director of security for the World Trade Center on the eve of the attack. O'Neill
perished in the collapse of the complex.”

Whatever
the circumstances of O’Neill’s death, what we do know is that prior to 9-11
there were a number of people in the United States intelligence and law
enforcement apparatus—particularly in the FBI—who stumbled upon disturbing
information relating to possible terrorist activities by “Arabs” and “Islamic
extremists” and that, when they sought to investigate further, they found their
efforts were frustrated.

After 9-11
the efforts of such individuals as FBI Special Agent Colleen Rowley in
Minneapolis, Kenneth Williams, the senior special agent from an FBI terrorism task
force in Phoenix, Chicago-based FBI Special Agent Robert Wright and others came
to public attention.

But the
fact that their warnings about possible terrorist activity and/or connections
by some of those whose names were linked to 9-11 was largely dismissed as a yet
another unfortunate bureaucratic blunder, a terrible snafu, just so typical of
“our” government today.

“Wasn’t it
a tragedy,” they said, “that people didn’t pay attention to what Colleen Rowley
and others had to say? That might have stopped 9-11 from happening. More
government incompetence. ”

Our
contention here is that the efforts of these FBI agents were suppressed not
because of bureaucratic bungling or incompetence but precisely because there
was absolute knowledge—at higher levels—that the future hijackers were, in
fact, under the control and direction of Israeli intelligence (and/or perceived
to be likewise under the control and direction of American intelligence) and
that this is why their activities were allowed to continue and why the FBI
agents’ warnings were deliberately ignored and suppressed.

It is
doubtful that even most (if any) of those people at the higher (even the
highest) levels had any idea that an event like 9-11 was slated to happen. They
were simply aware that “this is an Israeli operation” or “this is a joint
U.S.-Israeli operation,” so therefore, “let it alone.”

These
people believed that the activities facilitating the 9-11 conspiracy, moving it
along through its course of planning and development, were actually anti-terrorist
monitoring operations being conducted by “our ally”—Israel—as part of its
vaunted infiltration and manipulation of Islamic fundamentalist forces (details
of which we’ve already delved into in the pages of this volume).

It was a
perfect cover for Israel’s historic false flag template for terror—and one that
was carefully crafted to prevent persons holding high-level security clearances
from going public with any knowledge that they did have about the operations.

And this
brings us to Able Danger.

A joint
project of the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Special Forces Command, Able
Danger was a highly-classified counter-terrorism operation that was the one
U.S. government surveillance operation that almost certainly picked up on the Israeli-controlled
“Al-Qaeda” operation—the 9-11 conspiracy.

Sidelined
four months before 9-11 by the Bush administration—and this action most
assuredly involved high-level forces loyal to (or otherwise compromised by)
Israeli intelligence—Able Danger had already been substantially eviscerated as
far back as mid-2000 when—under the direction of the U.S. Army Intelligence and
Security Command—vast amounts of computerized data compiled by Able Danger were
destroyed.

According
to some accounts, the amount of material eliminated was equal to the modern-day
holdings of the Library of Congress.

After 9-11,
Army Lt. Colonel Anthony Shaffer, the Defense Intelligence Agency’s liaison to
Able Danger, brought Able Danger’s existence to the public and suffered
widespread repudiation for having done so, particularly in response to his
claims that the dismantling of Able Danger had played a part in essentially
allowing 9-11 to happen.

In other
words, Shaffer said that because Able Danger had been shut down, this crippled
any serious effort to monitor the activities of those who were involved in the
very operations that were underway and which resulted in the tragedy that we
recall today as 9-11.

Responding
to revelations from Shaffer and other Able Danger whistleblowers who came forth
in response to Shaffer’s public allegations, then-Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa)
issued a press statement on August 12, 2005 describing Able Danger:

The task assigned to Able Danger was to
identify and target Al-Qaeda on a global basis and, through the use of cutting
edge technology (data-mining, massive parallel processing, neural networking
and human factors analysis) and enhanced visualization and display tools,
present options for leaders (national command authority) to manipulate, degrade
or destroy the global Al-Qaeda infrastructure.

Naturally,
of course, Shaffer never suggested that Able Danger had uncovered any
behind-the-scenes Israeli connections to the “Al-Qaeda” terrorists. Whether he
knew (or suspected) this to be the case is another question altogether, and
it’s highly unlikely that Shaffer would have gone public with any such
suspicions under any circumstances.

However,
the truth is Able Danger’s capacity to monitor the activities of longtime
Mossad asset Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and the 9-11 patsies—being handled “on the
ground” by mista’arvim Jews, posing as Arabs—would have certainly provided a
virtually indisputable and all-too-clear overview of the patterns and
connections of the Israeli sources of funding and intelligence that helped facilitate
the 9-11 attacks.

And that’s
why it was so vital that the reality of what Able Danger represented be
thoroughly repudiated and publicly discredited. A serious analysis of Able
Danger’s data would have pointed directly at Israel and the Mossad for its
central role in directing the 9-11 conspiracy.

To no one’s
surprise, the 9-11 Commission was careful to do its utmost to undercut Shaffer
and Weldon and others who were raising questions about Able Danger. In his
aforementioned press statement, Weldon described the 9-11 Commission’s
prevarications:

The 9/11 Commission has released multiple
statements over the past week, each of which has significantly changed —from
initially denying ever being briefed to acknowledging being briefed on both
operation Able Danger and [alleged “lead hijacker”] Mohammed Atta.

The information was omitted primarily because
they foundit to be suspect despite
having been briefed on it two times by two different military officers on
active duty. Additionally, the 9/11 Commission also received documents from the
Department of Defense on Able Danger.

1)Why did the Department of Defense fail to
pass critical information obtained through Able Danger to the FBI between the
summer and fall of 2000?

2) Why did the 9/11 Commission staff fail to
properly follow-up on the three separate occasions when they received information
on Able Danger and Mohammed Atta?

These were
all good questions and good concerns and Weldon was right to ask them.

If—however
unlikely, of course—bin Laden Arabs in the Al-Qaeda network had been
responsible for 9-11, as the official story went (and still goes), the fact
that Able Danger and its intelligence capacities had been sidelined, its data
ditched into oblivion, and its very existence and value being essentially
denied is certainly a curious matter, by the estimation of any honest observer.
And rightly so.

And that’s
why a lot of good people among the American public—who believed 9-11 was the
consequence of a gigantic behind-the-scenes intelligence bungle—a la the “sting
gone wrong” cover story in Oklahoma City—were demanding the U.S. government
account for the Able Danger controversy and the questions that arose.

But the
fact remains that nobody (at least publicly, of course) seemed to consider the
possibility—the likelihood—that we’ve outlined here: that Able Danger’s data
would ultimately have implicated Israel as the real “mastermind” behind the
9-11 terrorist attacks.

Now
Congressman Weldon declared that he would “continue to push for a full
accounting of the historical record so that we may preclude these types of
failures from happening again.” But any possibility of Weldon pursuing that
agenda came to an effective end when he was defeated for re-election in 2006. Having
come under fire in the media—quite conveniently—for alleged corruption
involving his ties to defense contractors, the conservative Republican was
forced out of office.

Whether the
scandals surrounding Weldon were contrived for that purpose and directly
attributable to concerns about his focus on Able Danger and its
ramifications—that is, the potential danger of exposing Israel’s
behind-the-scenes role in 9-11—can only be speculated upon.

And it
should be noted that, for the most part, Weldon’s own political inclinations
would not suggest he was inclined to pursue an agenda that would be injurious
to Israel. Quite the contrary. Weldon was closely intertwined with many of the
infamous “high priests of war”—pro-Israel neo-conservative elements in official
Washington—a grand list of sordid intriguers whose names are familiar to those
versed in the machinations that led to American involvement in Iraq and
Afghanistan in the Jewish-inspired “War on Terror.” And after leaving office, Weldon
even published a book claiming Iran was conspiring to attack America.

On the
other hand, on two matters, in particular, Weldon may have engaged in
activities that impinged upon Israel’s particular interests.

In one
instance he took a quite independent stand from the Bush administration’s
aggressive stance toward North Korean nuclear weapons. In fact—although many
people are unaware of this—it has long been an article of faith among
pro-Israel zealots that North Korea’s nuclear arsenal is a threat to Israel, a
point that is not widely discussed in the major media, although commonly
referenced in pro-Israel journals and in the opinion columns of Jewish
community newspapers.

And in
another respect—a strange twist—Weldon had, even while in Congress, forged an
unusually close relationship with Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi—never, to say
the least, a favorite of Israel—and members of his family.

Shortly
before the so-called “Arab spring” revolution (orchestrated by the United
States and Israel) that resulted in his brutal murder, Gaddafi had actually
taken to the floor of the United Nations and echoed the thesis of my book, Final Judgment: That Israel had been behind
the assassination of President Kennedy as a consequence of JFK’s opposition to
Israel’s drive to acquire nuclear weapons.

In fact,
right after Final Judgment was
published, the Libyan Embassy in New York purchased three copies of the book
and shortly thereafter I was invited to address the topic of the book at the Second
Green Dialogue for an Alternative World Order held in Tripoli, Libya by the
Jamahir Society for Philosophy and Culture which was primarily sponsored by the
Gaddafi government.

Unfortunately,
because of restrictions against travel to Libya (imposed upon Americans by the
pressure of the Israeli lobby), I felt it best not to attend and risk
prosecution. However, the organizers asked me to submit a written statement
which was read aloud to the participants who had come from all over the globe.
In the aftermath I received letters from people as far away as Malta, Ghana and
Guyana who were profoundly surprised to learn there are a few Americans unafraid
to raise questions about the U.S. relationship with Israel.

In any
case, after leaving Congress, Curt Weldon continued his close association with
the Libyans, even to the point of becoming the first non-Libyan member of the
Gaddafi Foundation. So the fact that Weldon was on such intimate terms with a
“controversial” Arab leader who had actually accused Israel of involvement in the
JFK assassination is an interesting point, whatever the case.

The bottom
line is that it is hard to say precisely what motivated Weldon’s vocal public
interest in pursuing the matter of Able Danger.

Weldon’s
seemingly contradictory stands (as outlined above) make it impossible to divine
exactly where the congressman was coming from, but, in the end, it may simply
be that Weldon was sincerely concerned that hard-line Islamic fundamentalists
(plotting against America) had been under surveillance and that for seemingly inexplicable
reasons, their activities (being monitored by Able Danger) had been effectively
disregarded.

And it
should probably be mentioned that, in many respects, Muammar Gaddafi—although
the Muslim leader of an Islamic state—was never, in fact, a favorite either of
Israel or of the hard-line Islamic fundamentalists (whom he had suppressed
during his years in power).

So, in that
sense, Weldon’s kinship with Gaddafi (and Weldon’s concerns about Islamic
fundamentalist terror networks) were not necessarily mutually exclusive as some
less nuanced observers might perceive.

While
outlining these matters regarding Weldon’s involvement in bringing Able Danger
to a greater public attention that it would have otherwise received, there were
moments when I felt—for the sake of the readers—that much of this might be
perceived to be a distraction or perhaps too much of a digression from the
specific topic at hand.

However, I
think the case of Weldon demonstrates that sometimes there is much more to some
matters than meets the eye and that, contradictions notwithstanding, sometimes
we can find someone engaged in an activity motivated by hidden factors not so
easily defined.

Is it
possible that Curt Weldon did, in fact, realize or learn (through some means)
that Israel was indeed the driving force behind 9-11 and that he was utilizing
his campaign to bring focus upon Able Danger to bring that matter into public
discussion, if only through what might be described as “the back door”?

What we do
know is that while the Jewish-controlled media did Mention Able Danger, it was
only in the context of furthering the official cover story that “bin Laden
Arabs” were behind 9-11. And that perhaps through some unfortunate slip-up, the
evidence that would have prevented the tragedy had somehow been lost in the
netherworld of the American intelligence bureaucracy.

***

So there we have it. This was the
template—the tried-and-true Israeli method of operation of false flag
terrorism—designed to orchestrate the 9-11 attack on America to be blamed on Islamic
terrorists. To summarize:

It was all
really quite so simple in many respects and perhaps not so complicated as a lot
of 9-11 truthers—even those who concur that Israel was involved—would have us
believe.

Utilizing
its long-time assets inside Islamic fundamentalist circles peripherally or even
directly “linked” to Osama bin Laden—with the now-notorious Khalid Shaikh
Mohammed at the pinnacle—Israel’s Mossad dispatched mista’arvim Jews (posing as
Arabs) into key command posts, manipulating genuine do-or-die Islamic
fundamentalists into a hijacking scheme keyed to take place precisely at the
time when the United States defense and intelligence command was engaging in widespread
hijacking drills and related exercises involving the use of airliners for the
purpose of terrorism.

To what
extent there was deliberate treason by American conspirators (in the military
or otherwise) will never be precisely known, but, unfortunately, it seems
likely that there were indeed treasonous actions by Americans that were taken
on 9-11 that facilitated the conspiracy.

Whether
those who engaged in those acts of treason did so out of loyalty to Israel for
religious or ethnic reasons, whether they were American Jews or even Christian
fundamentalist supporters of Israel, or perhaps even individuals who were
compromised through blackmail or extortion or otherwise simply bought-and-paid
for is yet another matter for speculation.

In the
meantime, through whatever covert means, the Israelis were able to use their
considerable resources to assure that any existing American intelligence
monitoring of Islamic fundamentalist networks—namely Able Danger, for one known
example (and there were probably others that we do not know about) was
sidelined or otherwise altered and distorted so as to cover up Israel’s
behind-the-scenes role.

On 9-11 the
events we now recall—to the extent we really know what did happen (and even all
of that is subject to debate—did indeed take place. In the end it doesn’t
matter whether particle beam weapons or mini-nuclear weapons or other exotic
scientific technology was used to bring down the trade towers, for example.

The bottom
line is that the 9-11 tragedy did take place and it was utilized, quite
successfully, by Israel and its allies in the Jewish-controlled media (with the
willing assent of the American government under George W. Bush) to bring about
a new paradigm in global affairs. Nothing would ever be the same again.

Even the
Bush administration’s official document, The
National Security Strategy of the United States of America, issued in 2002,
said flatly: “The events of September 11, 2001 opened vast, new opportunities.”

What
opportunities they were!

The
long-awaited “Clash of Civilizations”—feverishly enunciated by Zionist theoreticians—was
now underway.

America was
pushed into an un-ending “War on Terror”—one Jewish strategist, Norman
Podhoretz, enthusiastically called it “World War IV”—and the United States
became the driving force, the banker and the military might—behind a new
imperialism, the framework for a would-be Jewish Imperium (a global planetary
regime) often referred to as “the New World Order.”

The ancient
dream of Jewish rabbis—laid forth in the Talmud—of an ultimate Jewish rule over
the peoples of the world came ever closer to being realized and that, from the
beginning, was precisely the intent of Israel in making 9-11 happen.

The New
Enemy to be vanquished was Islam and Americans were manipulated by the
Jewish-controlled media—in the name of “patriotism” and “Americanism” and
“fighting terrorism,” and “homeland security”—to combat this dangerous enemy.

It was
“Onward Christian Soldiers” once again.

In the JFK
assassination and the Oklahoma City bombing, Israel’s fine hand was always
visible, although not in ways that many even more perceptive individuals might
immediately see. But what we do know, as we’ve seen in these pages, is that the
parallels between the mechanism used by Israel in these crimes—and later in
9-11—are all too clear when we push aside the distractions (deliberate and
otherwise).

After my
book on the JFK assassination (and Israel’s involvement therein) was first
published, one reader wrote me a remarkable letter in which he asserted:

You have been the chronicler of a great episode
in Jewish history, the writer of an important book, a modern sort of Bible. You
have shown—in their eyes—that their Mossad was justified in executing President
Kennedy, especially as you paired it with the heroism of Esther. One nation’s
assassins are another nation’s saviors. What is foreign policy to one nation
may be warfare to another, and all’s fair in war.

Israel’s
9-11 attack on America—like the JFK assassination and the Oklahoma bombing—was
an act of war that needs retribution.

Michael Mukasey along with Michael Chertoff, both key suspects in the
9/11 cover-up, also worked hand and glove in the first false flag
bombing of the WTC in 1993. Chertoff was the lead prosecutor and Mukasey
was the judge presiding over the fraudulent trial of the “Blind
Sheikh”, Omar Abdel Rahman in the aftermath of the false flag bombing at
WTC in 1993. The “Blind Sheikh” at the beginning of the trial asked
Mukasey to remove himself from the trial given his severe bias towards
the state of Israel. Mukasey, who had not permitted the “blind sheikh”
the services of his choice of attorney and who also prevented the “blind sheikh” from his
due process denying him the right to have an expert witness explain
Islam to the ignorant jury, curtly refused this motion from the
defendant.

Radical Jewish Judge Michael Mukasey presided over

the 1993 WTC Bombing Trial of the "Blind Sheikh." This

precursor attack to 9/11 implicated Mossad via Israeli

intelligence assets Ahmad Ajaj and Josie Hadas to name two.

Mukasey helped expedite the release of the 5 mossad agents

of 9/11. Judge Mukasey also ruled heavily in favor of Silverstein

and Lowy, forcing the insurance consortium that insured the

WTC to pay dual payouts on towers to the tune of $4.68

billion, a very handsome return on their investment.

After his sentencing, the “Blind Sheikh”, among other
anomalies and inconsistencies of the prosecution’s case, patiently
explained that it was impossible for him to form a terrorist group while
being incarcerated thousands of miles away during its creation. He was
repeatedly and rudely interrupted by an irate and indignant Mukasey as
the sheikh painstakingly debunked the fraudulent proceedings of the
trial.

In the 9/11 attacks Mukasey’s role was multifaceted. He oversaw the
detained witnesses and suspects including the 5 dancing Israeli Mossad
agents at the behest of then Assistant Attorney General at the
Department of Justice, Michael Chertoff, the son of a founding member of
the Mossad. Mukasey’s greatest contribution to 9/11, however, might be
his judgment in the case of Larry Silverstein, owner of the lease of
the WTC complex against his insurance company. He judged that the two
towers were separate instances of terrorism and as such awarded double
the insurance settlement to the tune of $4.6 billion. More on
Silverstein later.

Israeli Michael Chertoff whose mother was a founding Mossad agent was
directly responsible for the non-investigation and prosecution of the
9/11 massacre. Chertoff was also the dominant author of the Patriot Act,
which severely curtailed civil liberties and was written well before
9/11 took place. The Patriot Act was edited hours before it was
presented for a vote to ensure ICTS and other Israeli-connected firms
would be immune from prosecution for the events of 9/11. To create a
smokescreen, Chertoff rounded up innocent arabs and muslims to solidify
the “Islamic terrorist” theatrics and let the mossad agent suspects and
Israeli art student spies go back to Israel without investigation. In
addition, Chertoff’s company, “The Chertoff Group” is making hundreds of
millions of dollars off the electronic body scanners in airports which
were constructed well in advance of the Christmas Day Underwear Bombing
false flag fiasco. The Israeli ICTS also ran the security at the
Schiphol Amsterdam airport where the flight on that Christmas Day
originated.(...)
Waiting for the baton at the Port Authority was its chairman, Lewis
Eisenberg. Eisenberg, who is a shining star of fundraising for Israel,
personally negotiated and administered the deal that landed the WTC
complex into the hands of Larry Silverstein and Frank Lowy.
Larry Silverstein, super-Zionist UJA board member and Frank Lowy, ex-Haganah terrorist, both multi-millionaires
billionaires with very close ties to the state of Israel, acquired this
lease for the WTC in late July of 2001 hardly 6 weeks before the attack
through the efforts of Lauder and Eisenberg. All four of these men had
personal friendships and relations with Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud
Barak, leaders of the Israeli government and suspects in 9/11.
Silverstein had conversations with Netanyahu every Sunday. Immediately
after the towers were in his hands, Silverstein took out a $3.5 billion
anti-terrorism insurance policy with a consortium of insurers. After
the towers fell, Michael Mukasey who played a critical role in sending
the Mossad agents arrested on 9/11 to Israel, worked as a judge on
behalf of Silverstein against the insurance company who was awarded the
payout for two separate attacks to the tune of $4.68 billion. Not a bad
profit margin on the slaughter of 3000 people.

(...) Following in the
footsteps of his predecessor Bill Clinton, (who pardoned Mossad agent
Marc Rich on his last day in office) there is George Bush and his
commuting the sentence of well-known Mossad operative Irving ‘Scooter”
Libby’s. With this as a model there is no reason to believe Bush
wouldn’t do the same with respect to the two Israeli spies Rosen and
Weissman.

Of course, again
this is all based on the assumption that the trial will take place at
all. Keep in mind that Michael Mukasey, an orthodox Jew who was directly
involved in sending back to Israel a whole gaggle of Mossad agents
immediately following 9/11 (including the infamous ‘High-Fivers’ seen
filming the destruction of the Twin Towers and cheering) has been made
head of the US Justice Department. As such, with a simple phone call he
can shut down the trial with all the ease involved in ordering a
take-out pizza. Needless to say, Mukasey being made the nation’s highest
law enforcement officer portends the worst, and particularly with
regards to the issue of Israeli espionage against America. Given that he
decides who and what will be investigated, it is not hard to imagine
FBI counter-espionage teams being pulled off of vital cases involving
Israel in order to catch whale poachers in Alaska.

When once
speaking about AIPAC, accused spy Steve Rosen compared it to a ‘night
flower’ that ‘thrives in the dark and withers in the light of day’. He
was not speaking poetically as much as accurately, and he knew it. If
Americans knew the extent to which their nation has been plunged into
the bloody affairs of Middle East politics, including the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan and the gathering storm involving Iran and Syria as a
result of this lobby’s influence they would burn down the headquarters
and run its members out of the country. Excepting something truly
apocalyptic taking place, this trial may be the last chance for
Americans to wake up to the danger they face as a result of this lobby’s
influence over their nation’s affairs. Anything less than justice being
served will result in increased spying on America, both in terms of
activity and aggressiveness, increased false flag operations and
whatnot. Having no reason to fear the US Justice system, Jonathon
Pollards will be crawling out of the wood work like termites boring into
the load-bearing beams of the US national security apparatus.

(...)The new leaseholders were United
Jewish Appeal board member, ultra-Zionist Larry Silverstein, and former
Haganah terrorist and Golani Brigade Commando, billionaire Frank Lowy,
whose mall conglomerate Westfield America was guaranteed 427,000 square
feet of retail floor space. Eisenberg, Lauder, Lowy and Silverstein all
had close, friendly ties with Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, and Ariel
Sharon; Silverstein even had phone conversations with the current
Zionist entity prime minister every Sunday (25). An anti-terrorism
insurance contract was established with Swiss Re Insurance which would
pay out $3.5 billion for a single terrorist attack, and an additional
payment of the same amount for two terrorist attacks, hence why the
Solomon Brothers Building, better known as Building 7 was destroyed.
Silverstein adopted this policy six weeks before 9/11 (26).
Silverstein’s battle with the insurance company was eventually decided
in his favor by Zionist Judge Michael Mukasey, who determined the planes
crashing into the Twin Towers constituted multiple terror attacks, and
the fate of Building 7 wasn’t necessary for the ruling (27). Mukasey
would play a crucial role in discharging the Mossad agents captured on
9/11, and would later go on to become Attorney General for war criminal
George W. Bush’s administration (28).

(...)New York Police
Commissioner Bernard Kerik visited Israel two weeks prior to 9/11 from August 26-29, 2001,
at which time he met Eitan Wertheimer, one of
Israel's richest businessmen
who was reading Popular Mechanics at the age of 4. Kerik announced on
September 16, 2001 that a "passport belonging to one of the hijackers" had been
"discovered", and denied that an Israeli van stopped near the George Washington
Bridge on 9/11 contained explosives after it reportedly contained "tons" of high
explosives that could do great damage to the bridge. Kerik later received a $250,000 "loan" from
Wertheimer, and was subsequently indicted, convicted and jailed for lying,
conspiracy and fraud.(...)

Daily Mail 'proves' fire brought down WTC7 (...)There is multiple corroborating evidence that Muslims did not do 9/11, and that Israel played a central role, aided by corrupt elements of the Bush administration. This is reinforced by Zionist Jews' role in the cover-up: Jerome Hauer's
appearance on TV within hours of the attacks peddling the official
story about "Osama bin Laden" and buildings that collapsed because of
plane impacts and intense fires, the Herzliya-based Don Radlauer's
publication of a report
detailing the flight paths of the alleged four hijacked planes that
suggested hijacking and steering the planes would have been an easy
task, Eddie Guigui Shalev's claim that
Hani Hanjour was a "good" pilot, and Bernard Kerik's receipt of more
than $236,000 (as "rent") from Steven C. Witkoff along with a $250,000
"loan" originating from Eitan Wertheimer, after Kerik had traveled to Israel two weeks prior to 9/11/01 where he met Wertheimer, and then claimed on 9/16/01
that a "hijacker's passport" had been "discovered" - implying that it
had miraculously got separated from the "hijacker's" clothing or
baggage and another hundred tons of aircraft debris, survived the Flight
11 fireball, and floated down to the ground in almost pristine
condition despite being soaked with jet fuel.

Wertheimer - whose father Stef helped to make weapons for Jewish terrorists before 1948, and whose family was listed by Forbes magazine as fourth-richest in Israel as of March 2011 with a net worth of $4 billion - was reading the infamous Popular Mechanics at the age of 4. In its March 2005 edition, Popular Mechanics ran a dishonest piece
purporting to be "debunking the myths" of "9/11 conspiracy theories".
They did not even make a half-hearted attempt to 'explain' forensic
evidence such as molten steel at the WTC by, for example, pretending it
was aluminum or lead. They just totally ignored it, dodging the issue
with the non sequitur that the "steel frames didn't need to melt" in order for the buildings to collapse, and then attacked straw man claims, e.g. about video 'evidence' of a "pod" on Flight 175.

Others attempting to cover for their crooked co-religionists include Cass Sunstein and David Aaronovitch,
the former trying to counter 9/11 truth by infiltration, and the
latter by mixing in lots of straw men, denying evidence that he finds
inconvenient and bringing out the old chestnut about how it would have
needed a lot of conspirators. In other words, Aaronovitch and Popular Mechanics employ a similar sophistry.(...)

Analyse du rapport du FBI sur les "Israéliens dansants": The "Dancing Israelis" FBI Report - Debunked (...)Nonetheless, the material that has already been released is sufficient
to prove that the Israelis did indeed have foreknowledge of the attacks
on the WTC. That is of course consistent with Israel's capability and
history of staging false-flag terror, the two hours' advance warning
of the WTC attack transmitted via the Herzliya / New York-based Israeli
instant messaging service Odigo, the failure of Benjamin Netanyahu's
friend Larry Silverstein and his children to turn up for work that day
at the World Trade Center, Netanyahu's advance warning of, and Efraim
Halevy's intimate knowledge of, the London 7/7 attacks, the $250,000
"loan" received by Bernard Kerik from Israeli billionaire Eitan
Wertheimer together with $236,000 in rent paid by Steven C. Witkoff
after Kerik visited Israel from August 26-29, 2001 to meet with
Wertheimer and then claimed on September 16, 2001 that a "hijacker's
passport" had been "discovered", along with multiple corroborating
evidence much too numerous to mention in an introduction.(...)
[Members of the Jewish Agency For Israel (JAFI) Board of Governors include Israeli billionaire Eitan Wertheimer, who "loaned" Bernard Kerik $250,000 after Kerik traveled to Israel to meet him at the end of August 2001 and then claimed on September 16, 2001 that a "hijacker's passport" had been "discovered", and Natan Sharansky, who met for more than an hour with George W. Bush on November 11, 2004 after Bush's friend Tom Bernstein sent Bush a copy of Sharansky's book The Case for Democracy with a note urging him to read it. Sharansky is the Chairman of the JAFI Executive.](...)
Rudy Guliani is the former boss and very good friend
of former New York Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik, and the
godfather of his young children. Kerik and Giuliani were both traveling
together on 9/11. Kerik made a four-day trip to Israel from August 26-29, 2001, where he met with Israeli billionaire Eitan Wertheimer before claiming on September 16, 2001 that the passport of "hijacker" Satam al Suqami had been discovered several blocks from the WTC crash site. Kerik subsequently received a $250,000 "loan" that originated from Eitan Wertheimer,
and also benefited to the tune of more than $236,000 in rent paid by
Steven C. Witkoff, a Jewish New York real estate developer who was
named "Real Estate Man of the Year" by the Israel Cancer Research Fund
and received the organization's "2001 Humanitarian Award" on October
23, 2001. Kerik was provided with a rent-free luxury apartment worth
$9,000 a month shortly after 9/11. On November 8, 2007, Kerik was indicted on 16 counts including lying, conspiracy, fraud, and taking and failing to report the $250,000 from Wertheimer. In February 2010, Kerik was sentenced to four years in prison.

The Protocols of Anti-Semitism Part Three:
Israel's 9/11 False-Flag (takeourworldback.com)
All the proof anyone could ever need. Includes new
timing of eyewitness sighting of the "Dancing Israelis" at the Doric Apartment
block, cross-referenced with the announcement on 1010 WINS of the first plane
crash, between 4 minutes 9 seconds and 4 minutes 22 seconds after that crash.
The witness, who saw the Israelis atop their van high-fiving, hugging each
other, horsing around and having fun as they took video and still photographs of
the burning WTC, was listening to 1010 WINS, and did not hear anything about the
WTC prior to receiving a phone call from her friend, who'd been alerted by a
"strange noise" and looked out and saw smoke rising from the North Tower. Upon
receiving the phone call, the witness looked out of her window, and according to
the FBI, "It was at that time that T-1 had also observed the Israelis atop the
white van". They have less than 5 minutes to learn of the event, decide to take
time off work at Urban Moving to indulge their new hobby as "journalists" and
take their employer's van, grab their cameras, run out to the van, make a 4- to
5-minute drive in the rush hour, make a left turn, drive to the parking lot,
jump out and climb onto the roof with their cameras. As early as June, the
Israelis had booked a flight for September 12 to flee to Israel, via Greece.
There is much more too numerous to mention.